Judgment Narayan, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 800.00 as principal and Rs. 228/- as interest on the basis of a handnote, dated 17-2-1944, alleged to have been executed by the original defendant Ramlochan Sharma in favour of the plaintiff, 2. The defendant pleaded inter alia that the suit was not maintainable because the plff. was not a registered money-lender. This defence found favour with the Court of first instance, which dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not a registered money-lender at the time when the loan was advanced. The defence however, was rejected by the lower appellate Court, and, in the result, the lower-appellate Court decreed the suit in full. 3. It appears that when the appeal before the District" Judge was pending, Ramlochan Sharma died and his widow, his sons and grandsons were substituted in his place, they being, the appellants before this Court. 4. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the suit is maintainable even though the plaintiff was not a registered moneylender at the time when the loan was advanced. The contention of the plaintiff has been that though the plaintiff when he advanced the loan was not a registered money-lender, Sec. 4, Bihar Money-Lenders, Act, 1939 will not be a bar inasmuch as the loan had really been advance by Mungpshwar Singh, the karta of the plaintiffs family, who is now dead. Learned counsel for the respondent strenuously urged that because the word "Money-lender" includes a Hindu undivided family and legal representatives and the successors-in-interest, whether by inheritance, assignment or otherwise, of a person who advances a loan, the plaintiff will be able to maintain the suit even though the handnote does not stand in his name. This would have been a perfectly sound argument if the handnote would have been executed in the name of and the loan would have been advanced by Mungeshwar Singh, who, according to the findings of the Courts below, was the karta of the joint family. Admittedly the handnote does not stand in the name of Mungeshwar Singh and even the plaintiff of this suit does not say that the loan was advanced by Mungeshwar Singh. The clear averment in the plaint is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. Admittedly the handnote does not stand in the name of Mungeshwar Singh and even the plaintiff of this suit does not say that the loan was advanced by Mungeshwar Singh. The clear averment in the plaint is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 800/-from the plaintiff on 17-2-1944, and executed a handnote in favour of the plaintiff. There is a further statement to the effect that "the claim is made on the strength of the original consideration also." Thus, the plaint unmistakably goes to show that the loan was advanced by the plaintiff himself and the handnote was executed in his favour and in his name. Evidence, contrary to this statement, should not have been taken and the Court of appeal below was not justified in holding even in face of this averment that the loan had been really advanced on behalf of the joint family and that the plaintiff had sued in his capacity as the karta of the joint family. Advantage could be taken by the plaintiff of Sec.2(g), Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1938, only if the loan would have been advanced by Mungeshwar Singh and the handnote would have been executed in his favour; then and, then only it could be urged that Sec. 4, Bihar Money-Lenders Act., 1939, was not a bar to the maintenance of the suit by the present karta of the family. According to Sec. 5, Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1938, application for being registered as a money-lender has to be made by the person, who takes to the profession of money-lending, and the name and address of the applicant as also the name and style under which he carried on or desires to carry on business as a money-lender have to be mentioned. Section 4 of the Act of 1939 says that "no Court shall entertain a suit by a money lender for the recovery of a loan advanced by him after the commencement of this Act unless such money-lender was registered under the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1938, at the time when such loan was advanced." The words "such money-lender" are important and in this case the money-lender was none else than the plaintiff himself in whose name the handnote stands. To my mind, it is absurd to contend that though the money-lender on the face of the promissory note is none else than the plaintiff himself the real money-lender should be taken to be Mungeshwar Singh within the meaning of the word or expression as it has been used in the Bihar Money-Lenders Act. There does not appear to be any justification whatsoever for the view that though according to the case made out by the plaintiff and as the name of the payee as given in the document stands, the money-lender was none else than Rash-Behari Singh, the suit should now be decreed on the ground that the real moneylender was Mungeshwar Singh, who had been registered as the money-lender. The registered money-lender was Mungeshwar Singh and Mungeshwar Singh alone and it was Mungeshwar Singh alone who could sue for the recovery of the money due on the promissory note. As such that portion Of the definition of the word "money-lender", which says that it includes a Hindu undivided family and legal representatives and the successors-in-interest of the person who advances the loan, does not come into play. Learned Counsel for the respondent referred to a decision of this Court in the case of --Meghraj Tibrawala V/s. Panchu Sahu, AIR 1952 Pat 39 (A) but this decision is, in my opinion, against the view which he has expressed. Here also it has been stated that the expression "money-lender" is defined as meaning a person who advances a loan and includes inter alia the legal representatives and successors-in-interest whether by inheritance, assignment or otherwise of a person who advances a loan. On the authority of this case it cannot be urged that the expression "money-lender" would include not only the actual money-lender but somebody else. The whole fallacy appears to be that the definition given in Sec.2 (g), Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1938 is sought to be applied even in a case in which it is the original money-lender who is suing for the money advanced by him. In the decision cited his Lordship Das J. pointed out that "the right of recovery of the money was also in the appellant, though the money might have come out of the funds of the wife." Here also the right of recovery of the money is in the plaintiff alone. In the decision cited his Lordship Das J. pointed out that "the right of recovery of the money was also in the appellant, though the money might have come out of the funds of the wife." Here also the right of recovery of the money is in the plaintiff alone. His Lordship further observed that "a promissory note contains an unconditional undertaking to pay, and the question of a benami transaction does not really arise on a negotiable instrument of this kind." On the authority of this case I am perfectly justified in holding that the plaintiff alone would be taken to be the money-lender who had advanced the loan within the meaning of Sec. 4, Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1939 and that no other interpretation is possible. The words used in Sec. 4 of the Act of 1939 and the words used in Sections 2 (g) and 5, Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1938, do not justify any other interpretation. 5 In the result, therefore, I would allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and the decree of the lower appellate Court and dismiss the suit. In the circumstances of the case the defendant appellant will have the costs of this appeal only and not the costs of the Courts below. 6. Leave to appeal under the Letters Patent is refused.