1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** J U D G M E N T Birdumal Vs. Radhey Shyam S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO. NO.118/1990 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AN DECREE DATED 2.4.1990 PASSED BY LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, Jaipur District, Jaipur IN CIVIL SUIT NO.24/1988. Date of Order : December 8, 2006. P R E S E N T HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Mohan Choudhary for Mr. G.Bardar for the appellant. None present for the respondent. BY THE COURT: 1. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the connected appeal namely Civil First Appeal No.117/1990 has already been dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 13.7.2006. 2. This first appeal has been filed by the defendant Birdumal against the judgment and decree dated 2.4.1990 filed in the civil suit No.24/1988 was decreed by the same court on the same date against which the connected appeal namely civil first appeal No.117/1990 was filed by son of plaintiff Kamlesh Kumar. In the present case the 2 plaintiff Radhey Shyam claimed the sum of Rs.13,000/- on account of loan advanced to the defendant Radhey Shyam for which a pro note and receipt was executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff on 20.9.1981. As against agreed rate of interest of Rs.3/- per hundred rupees, the plaintiff claimed interest only at the rate of Rs.1.50 per hundred in the suit. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was a money lender who did not hold any licence under the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 and that he had paid off the said loan by making various payments to the plaintiff. 3. The learned trial court on the basis of evidence led before it, came to the conclusion that the defendant could not establish that he had paid off the loan advanced by the plaintiff and, therefore, the decree was passed accordingly. The learned trial court also held that merely on account of casual transactions of money lending, the plaintiff could not be said to be covered by the definition of “money lender” as defined in Section 2 (10) of the said Act. 4. This Court while dismissing the connected appeal No.117/1990 on 13.7.2006 considered the definition of “money lender” and on the basis of evidence which was 3 common in both the cases, held that the plaintiff could not be said to be money lender and, therefore, no requirement of license for the plaintiff was there. Secondly since the defendant has not be able to prove in the present case, as in the connected civil suit that he has paid back the entire amount of loan, therefore, the learned trial court rightly reached to the conclusion that the defendant was liable to pay the decretal sum of Rs.13,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.1/- per hundred per month for the period 20.9.1981 to 19.9.1984 and thereafter from the date of filing the suit till the date of recovery at the rate of interest of 6% per annum. 5. This Court finds no infirmity in the said findings of the learned trial court arrived at on the appreciation of evidence before it which has been perused by this Court also and for the reasons assigned in the judgment of coordinate Bench in connected appeal No.117/1990, this present appeal is also liable to be dismissed. 6. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI),J. Rawat/