Money-lending recovery suit barred without registration and licence; decree also failed for ignoring material admissible evidence.

A recovery decree based on a pronote and receipt could not stand where the courts ignored material admissible evidence, including the receipt and the plaintiff's own cross-examination showing joint handling of the money-lending transactions and repayment calculations. The Court also held that a suit for recovery by a money lender was barred under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 when the plaintiff admitted he was engaged in money lending without registration or a valid licence. The decrees were set aside and the suit failed on both evidentiary and statutory grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the courts below misread and failed to consider the admissible evidence, including the receipt and the plaintiff's cross-examination, while decreeing the suit for recovery; (ii) Whether a suit for recovery based on a pronote and receipt was maintainable when the plaintiff was carrying on money-lending business without registration and a valid licence under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938.

Issue (i): The execution of the receipt in favour of the plaintiff's brother, read with the plaintiff's own admissions that calculations of principal and interest were being done by his brother and that both were jointly dealing with the money-lending transactions, showed that the repayment evidence could not be ignored. The courts below failed to appreciate this material admissible evidence in its proper context.

Conclusion: The finding on repayment could not be sustained because relevant admissible evidence was misread and omitted from consideration.

Issue (ii): Section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 bars a suit for recovery by a money lender based on a pronote unless the lender is registered and holds a valid licence as required by Section 4. The plaintiff's own testimony established that he was engaged in money lending, had no licence, and was not registered. The suit was therefore hit by the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned decrees were set aside and the recovery suit failed on both evidentiary and statutory grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for recovery by a person engaged in money lending cannot be maintained unless the statutory requirements of registration and licence are satisfied, and a decree based on ignoring material admissible evidence cannot stand.

---