Unpaid sale consideration is not a loan where a compromise decree preserves the original purchase-money character.

Unpaid purchase money under a compromise decree did not become a loan merely because it was made payable partly by instalments with interest and secured by a charge on the property. Relief under the Bengal Money Lenders Act required proof that the parties stood in a borrower-lender relationship and that the debt was, in substance, a loan. As no agreement or factual basis showed conversion of the original sale consideration into a loan, the amount remained unpaid price rather than borrowed money. Section 30 relief was therefore unavailable, and prior authorities were distinguished on the ground that they involved treatment of the original price as a loan or its equivalent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the decretal amount payable under a compromise decree for sale consideration and interest constituted a loan or a transaction in substance a loan so as to attract relief under Section 30 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act.

Analysis: The appellants had to establish that they were borrowers and that the sums sought to be recovered were payable in respect of a loan within the meaning of the Act. The compromise decree showed only that the unpaid purchase money under an agreement for sale was made payable partly at once and partly by instalments with interest, and that the property remained charged for the unpaid price. There was no evidence of any agreement converting the original character of the amount due as sale consideration into a loan, and the concurrent finding that no such agreement existed could not be disturbed. The earlier decisions relied on by the appellants were distinguished because, in those cases, the parties had treated the original price as a loan or its equivalent; here, the moneys remained unpaid purchase money.

Conclusion: The amount due was not a loan and the appellants were not borrowers within the Act; relief under Section 30 was unavailable.

---