Loan recovery suit within limitation; isolated advances did not make the plaintiff a money lender under the licensing law.

A suit for recovery of a loan was held within limitation because the instrument showed repayment became due on 13-3-1974, and the suit filed on 7-7-1976 was therefore timely. The Bombay High Court also held that section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 did not apply, as the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff was carrying on money-lending as a profession; isolated advances did not amount to a money-lending business. The concurrent decree in favour of the plaintiff was sustained and the second appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit for recovery of loan was barred by limitation; (ii) whether the suit was hit by section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 for want of a money-lending licence.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for recovery of loan was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The transaction was held to be a loan transaction, but the recitals in the instrument showed that repayment could be taken as due on 13-3-1974. The suit filed on 7-7-1976 was therefore within the prescribed period. The concurrent finding of the courts below on limitation was supported by the record.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation and the finding was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was hit by section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 for want of a money-lending licence.

Analysis: The defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff carried on money lending as a profession. The evidence showed only isolated advances, which did not amount to a money-lending business. On that footing, the plaintiff was not required to comply with the licensing requirement under the Act.

Conclusion: The bar under section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 did not apply and the finding was against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent decree in favour of the plaintiff was sustained and the second appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person does not become a professional money lender merely because of one or two casual loan transactions, and a suit is not barred by limitation if the repayment date found on the evidence shows that it was filed within time.

---