JUDGMENT M.A. RAZZAQUE, J. 1. This second appeal of the plaintiffs is directed against the decree passed by Shri S. J. Surena, 1st Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Appeal No. 453 of 1955 dismissing their suit to recover Rs. 3700/- from the defendant-respondent. 2. The defendant incurred loans by pawning his gold and silver ornaments with the plaintiffs from time to time since Samvat 2005 (1948) agreeing to repay them with interest. Rs. 3622/1/- including interest was found due from him on Kartik Sudi 1 Samvat 2007 (10-11-1950) which was duly acknowledged by him under Ex P-4. Thereafter the defendant made, some repayments but could not wholly discharge the loan and when being pressed for the payment of the amount he executed a chithi dated 8-8-1953 (Ex. P.17) acknowledging the liability and agreeing to clear of the debt by Shravan Sudi 15 Samvat 2010 (end of August 1953). In spite of this, he failed to pay up the loan amount and therefore plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, for Rs. 3700/- inclusive of interest. 3. The defendant admitted the acknowledgment Ex. P-4 but pleaded that it was obtained under pressure without settling the accounts and after charging compound interest on the loans incurred. He also admitted the note dated 8-8-1953 (Ex. P-17) but alleged that it was also given under pressure. 4. It was his case that the plaintiffs are money-lenders and he is in agriculturist, that they failed to submit yearly statements of accounts to him and therefore they are not entitled to interest and costs. It was further pleaded by him that as the plaintiffs failed to register themselves as money-lenders and obtain money-lender's certificate as required by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the M. B. Money Lenders Act, their suit was not maintainable under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the said Act. 5. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs are money lenders and the defendant is an agriculturist and therefore the provisions of M. B. Money Lenders Act apply to the suit transactions. Accordingly it disallowed interest amounting to Rs. 1576/9/6 and costs of the suit under section 13 of the said Act for plaintiff's failure to furnish the respondent with the annual statements of accounts. Accordingly it disallowed interest amounting to Rs. 1576/9/6 and costs of the suit under section 13 of the said Act for plaintiff's failure to furnish the respondent with the annual statements of accounts. It further held (and quite erroneously) that the provision of the Act donot provide for dismissal of the suit for failure to obtain a money-lender's certificate and therefore the suit was maintainable. All other contentions raised by the defendant were rejected by the trial Court and recordingly it decreed plaintiffs claim for the principal amount Rs. 2171/7/- disallowing costs and interest. 6. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against that decision and the respondent filed cross-objection and prayed for total dismissal of the suit. The first appellate Court by its judgment under appeal confirmed the findings of the trial Court that the plaintiffs are money-lenders as defined under the Act and the defendant is an agriculturist. It further held that plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable under Section 3 (3) of the Act for want of money-lender's registration certificate. It accordingly dismissed plaintiffs' appeal, but allowed the defendant's cross-objection with the result that the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed in its entirety. Being aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal. 7. The main contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants are:- (1) That the defendant failed to establish that he is an agriculturist at provided by Section 2 (11) of the M. B. Money Lenders Act; (2) That the transaction in suit is not covered by definition of 'loan' as contemplated by Section 2 (6) of the Act; and (3) That it has not been proved that the appellants are money-lenders as defined by Section 2 (4) read with Section 1 (5) of the Act. It was further contended that the cross-objection filed by the defendant in the lower Court was barred by time and therefore it erred in entertaining the same. 8. On behalf of the respondent, the decision of the lower appellate Court was fully supported. As regards appellants' objection to the cross-objection, it was contended that this objection was never raised it the lower Court and accordingly it cannot be raised here in this appeal. 9. As regards appellants' contention that the defendant-respondent has not been proved to be an agriculturist it has no substance. As regards appellants' objection to the cross-objection, it was contended that this objection was never raised it the lower Court and accordingly it cannot be raised here in this appeal. 9. As regards appellants' contention that the defendant-respondent has not been proved to be an agriculturist it has no substance. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court came to a concurrent finding that the defendant is an agriculturist. This finding has been reached by them on the evidence of plaintiffs' own witness Motilal (P.W. 1). This is a finding of fact and cannot be disturbed in second appeal (vide, D. Pattabhiramaswamy vs. S. Hanymayya AIR 1959 SC 57 and Paras Nath vs. Mohani Dasi AIR 1959 SC 1204 ). It was, however, contended that the defendant did not enter the witness box to prove that he earns his livelihood wholly or mainly from agriculture as defined by Section 2 (11) of the Act and the two Courts below did not apply their mind to this definition and accordingly the finding is bad. It would have been better had the defendant entered the witness-box but that does not better the stand taken by the appellants. He can prove this issue by taking advantage of the evidence adduced by them. Their own witness Motilal (P. W. 1) has admitted in unequivocal terms that "Prativadi kashtkar halisme shanka nahin." This therefore is a complete reply to appellants' contention. In addition to this, para 4 of the appellate Court's Judgment clearly shows that the appellants' counsel had admitted in that Court that the respondent is an agriculturist. It is not now open to the appellants to resile from that position. Further, in the plaint as well as in the memo of first appeal the defendant has been shown to be an agriculturist by the plaintiffs. Accordingly it has been fully established that the defendant is an agriculturist as defined in the Act. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 10. The other contention that the transaction in suit is not a loan as defined in Section 2 (6) of the Act is equally without substance. Accordingly it has been fully established that the defendant is an agriculturist as defined in the Act. This contention is, therefore, rejected. 10. The other contention that the transaction in suit is not a loan as defined in Section 2 (6) of the Act is equally without substance. It is plaintiffs own case that they advanced money to the defendant on pawn or pledge of gold and silver ornaments from time to time and for the balance the suit has been brought, It has been also admitted by Motilal (P. W. 1) and established by the Khata-entries filed by the plaintiffs that the advances were to carry interest, ranging from annas -/12/- to Rs. 1/4/- p. c., p. m. In fact, in some cases actually compound interest has been charged. The definition of 'loan' as given in sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the Act includes pawn and therefore fully applies to the transactions in suit. I accordingly reject this contention as well. 11. Now the next question for our decision is whether the plaintiffs are money-lenders as contemplated by sub-section (4) of Section 2 read with sub-section (5) of Section 1 of the M. B. Money-lenders Act, and if so, whether their suit was not maintainable under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act for want of a registration certificate. 12. Under Section 2 (4), 'money-lender' means a person who, in the regular course of business, advances a loan as defined in this Act. Section 1(5) says that the Act shall apply in the first instance to those money-lenders only who advance a loan to an agriculturist, but Government may, from time to time, extend its operation to any other money-lenders also. Broadly speaking, the Act contemplates two categories of money-lenders-(i) those who advance loans in the regular course of business to persons who are agriculturists, and (ii) those who advance loans to others who are not agriculturists. It was not shown to me that the provisions of the Act have been extended to the second category of moneylenders The result, therefore, is that the provisions of the Act apply to only those money-lenders who in due course of business advance loans to agriculturists. Under sub-section (1) of Section 3, every money-lender has to register him-self and obtain a registration certificate. Under sub-section (1) of Section 3, every money-lender has to register him-self and obtain a registration certificate. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 provides that no money-lender shall be entilled to bring a suit for the recovery of his loan unless the provisions of Section 3 are complied with. 13. From the above discussion it would be clear that the provisions of the M. B. Money-lenders Act apply and registration is necessary only in the cases of the those money lenders who advance loans to agriculturists in regular course of business, (vide also Gopilal vs. Banwari lal 1955 NLR 241). In that case, it was further held that the burden of proving that the plaintiff is a money-lender is clearly on the defendant. Therefore it was for the defendant to establish that plaintiffs are such money-lenders as advance loans to agriculturists in regular course of business 14. From the judgment of the lower Court it appears that the appellants counsel had conceded there that they were money-lenders in the sense that they advance loans as denned in Section 2 (6) of the Act in the regular course of their business. That would not, however, take the defendant out of the woods. He shall have to establish further that plaintiffs are such money-lenders as advance loans to agriculturists in the regular course of business. The lower Court came to the conclusion that the appellants advance loans to agriculturists in regular course of business on the ground that plaintiffs' Munim Motilal (P. W. 1) deposed as under:- Angudhar dhande bvazuna ham rupye dene ka nahin karte hain, girvi ka karte hain. Kashtkar ko aise rakme to udhar di gai, nagdi ke vyavhar nahin kara. Kashtkaran ke sath lenden ki licence kabhi nahin liya. 15. I do not agree with the lower Court that these two statements of Motilal (P. W. 1) establish that the plaintiffs belong to this category of moneylenders. The first statement simply shows that the plaintiffs advance loans in regular course of business to debtors on the security of gold and silver ornaments. They do not advance loans to them without such security. This statement does not show that Motilal (P. W. 1) admitted that such loans were advanced to agriculturist-debtors. 16. As regards the clause "Kashtkar ko aise rakme to udhar di gai" in the second part of the statement, it does not mean advancing of loans to agriculturists. They do not advance loans to them without such security. This statement does not show that Motilal (P. W. 1) admitted that such loans were advanced to agriculturist-debtors. 16. As regards the clause "Kashtkar ko aise rakme to udhar di gai" in the second part of the statement, it does not mean advancing of loans to agriculturists. It simply means that ornaments were sold on credit to agriculturists and their price debited against them. Selling ornaments on credit is altogether a different thing from advancing loan. In Magilal Narayan vs. R. R. Contractor ( 1959 JLJ 742 ) it was held that in every case where goods are supplied on credit and the purchaser agrees to pay the price with interest, the transaction does not amount to a loan. There is nothing in the statement of this witness that the price of the ornaments due from the agriculturists was by agreement between the parties, treated as a loan. It therefore follows that on this account also the plaintiffs cannot be called money-lenders advancing loan to agriculturists in regular course of business. The next portion that "Kashtkaran ke sath lenden karne ka licence kabhi nahin liya" does not lead us anywhere. This answer reminds me of the question "Since when you stopped beatine your wife?" implying thereby that the wife was being beaten in the past, though it may not be a fact. It should have been specifically asked to Motilal whether any loans either secured or unsecured were being advanced to the agriculturists and if so advanced, then the question of obtaining money-lender's certificate would arise. It is altogether wrong to read in this statement that the plaintiffs are advancing loans to agriculturists and in spite of that they have not obtained money-lender's certificate. If a moneylender does not advance loan to agriculturists, it is not necessary for him to obtain money-lender's certificate. This statement is susceptible to this meaning as well. In short, Motilal's statements quoted above prove that plaintiffs are money-lenders but they do not prove that they advance loans to agriculturists in regular course of business 17. Had the matter stood there, the plaintiffs undoubtedly would have been entitled to a decree. But the matter does not stand there at all. We have seen that the plaintiffs are regular money-lenders. We have also seen that they have advanced loans to the defendant who is an agriculturist. Had the matter stood there, the plaintiffs undoubtedly would have been entitled to a decree. But the matter does not stand there at all. We have seen that the plaintiffs are regular money-lenders. We have also seen that they have advanced loans to the defendant who is an agriculturist. It was contended that the burden to prove that plaintiffs were money-lenders who advance loans to agriculturists in regular course of business was on the defendant and neither he entered the witness-box nor examined any other witnesses to prove this It was further contended that the loan to the defendant agriculturist was a casual transaction and accordingly it could not be maintained that the loan has been advanced in due course of business. I admit that burden to prove that the plaintiffs fall within the category of money-lenders of this type was on the defendant but as already stated, the defendant can prove this fact by relying on admitted facts or evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. The admitted facts in this case are that plaintiffs advanced loans of money to the defendant from time to time on pledge or pawn of gold and silver ornaments from 19-6-1948 to 1950 repayable with interest ranging from annas -/12/- to Re. 1/4/- p c., p. m. The occasions on which such loan transactions took place during the above period are probably 8 or 9. This would be clear from the admissions of the plaintiffs in the plaint as well as their own documents Exs. P-2 to P-14. It would also be clear therefrom that on such loans he charged compound interest also sometimes. Having regard to the course of transactions which were many between the plaintiffs and the defendant-agriculturist, it cannot be accepted that the advance of loan was casual. It may be said that the advances have been made to one agriculturist. That may be so but the transactions with him are not solitary or casual but they are many. Casual advance merely connotes that a person finding his friend or relation or any other person in pressing need agrees to his request and advances the loan to him to relieve him of his difficulty. Such is not the case here. That may be so but the transactions with him are not solitary or casual but they are many. Casual advance merely connotes that a person finding his friend or relation or any other person in pressing need agrees to his request and advances the loan to him to relieve him of his difficulty. Such is not the case here. The loans have been advanced by the plaintiffs to the defendant-agriculturist from time to time in regular course of business and therefore in my opinion they fall within the definition of "money-lenders" as contemplated by Section 2 (4) read with Section 1 (5) of the Money-Lenders Act. That being the case, it was necessary for them to get themselves registered as money-lenders under sub-section (1) of Section 3 and obtain money-lenders certificate. Provisions of Section 3 (3) are mandatory and do not admit of any exception. For want of money-lender's certificate, the plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. 18. I would therefore agree with the lower Court, though on different grounds, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to bring this suit to recover their loan from the defendant-agriculturist. 19. As regards objection to defendant's cross-objection, I am clear in my opinion that the matter cannot be agitated for the first time in this appeal. From the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it is clear that no such objection was raised before it. It is not a matter which can be disposed of without any further investigation. That being so, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to raise that objection for the first time in this appeal. The notice of the respondent shows that he was served on 29-12-1955 and he filed his cross objection on 27-1-1956. Prima facie it was within time. The contention is that the endorsement on the office notice shows that it was filed in the office on 27-12-1955 and from this we are asked to infer that the defendant must have been [served sometime before 27-12-1955 and accordingly the cross-objection filed on 27-1-1956 was beyond 30 days. There is no guarantee that the endorsement dated 27-12-1955 on the notice filed in the office is correct and that given in respondent's notice that he was served on 29.12.1955 is wrong. In order to ascertain true facts, the Court shall have to enter into investigation. There is no guarantee that the endorsement dated 27-12-1955 on the notice filed in the office is correct and that given in respondent's notice that he was served on 29.12.1955 is wrong. In order to ascertain true facts, the Court shall have to enter into investigation. Such an objection which entails investigation cannot be raised for the first time in second appeal when it was not raised in the lower Court. As the matter stands, the cross-objection was filed within time. That being so, this objection is rejected. 20. In the result, the decree of the lower Court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The appellants shall pay the costs of the respondent and bear their own. Counsel's fee Rs. 150 for each side if certified. Appeal dismissed