JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an appeal by the Plaintiff against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack dismissing his suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10177.86 with interest from Defendants 1 and 2. 2. The suit was brought on the allegation that, on 3-10. 955 the Plaintiff gave a loan of Rs. 11,000/- to Defendant No. 1 in the presence of Defendant No. 3 and that by way of collateral security a handnote (ext. 2) was executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 3, agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 6 percent per month (72 percent per annum). As the Plaintiff is not the bolder of the promissory note on the basis of the hand-note and hence he brought this suit on the basis of the loan which, according to him, was directly advanced by him to Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff is a practising Advocate of Cuttack Bar. Defendant No. 3 is a Kabuli who was carrying on money-lending transactions in Orissa for some time and who admittedly left Orissa for Afganistan about 4 years ago. It is also admitted that Defendant No. 3 was a client both of the Plaintiff and of the Plaintiff's father Shri. M.S. Rao who is one of the senior Advocates of Cuttack. Defendant No. 1 was, at all material times, working as a contractor in the Hirakud Dam Project. 3. The main defence of Defendant No. 1 was that there was no relationship of creditor and debtor between him and the Plaintiff, that he took the loan directly from Defendant No. 3 made payments by installments on several occasions and ultimately paid up the entire sum due. It was suggested that instead of returning the hand-note to him, Defendant No. 3 fraudulently handed it over to the Plaintiff and went away to Afganistan. Defendant No. 3 did not file any written statement and was ex parte throughout. 4. The lower Court was not inclined to accept the evidence of the Plaintiff to the effect that the loan was advanced by him to Defendant No. 1 and that there was no relationship of creditor and debtor between the two. He preferred the evidence of Defendant No. 1 on this point and held that the relationship of debtor and creditor existed only between Defendant No. 1 and Defendants No. 3. He preferred the evidence of Defendant No. 1 on this point and held that the relationship of debtor and creditor existed only between Defendant No. 1 and Defendants No. 3. He was inclined to hold that Defendant No. 3 might pay received money from the Plaintiff before giving it as a loan to Defendant No. 1 and that might make the Plaintiff the creditor of Defendant No. 3 so far as that transaction was concerned, but that it would, furnish a cause of action for the Plaintiff against Defendant No. 3 only. 5. The, finding of the lower Court was challenged by Mr. Pal, on behalf of the, Plaintiff. But before dealing with the facts I shall discuss a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the spit, raised by Mr. Dasgupta for the Respondent. It is true that this objection was not specifically taken in the lower Court, but as it, is based on a pure question of law which arises out of the admissions made by the Plaintiff himself, Mr. Dasgupta was permitted to raise the same and both parties were fully heard. 6. In paragraph 1 of the plaint the Plaintiff stated as follows: Plaintiff is a registered money-lender under the Orissa Money Lenders Act, (Certificate No. /23 dated 5-5-50/31-5-55 for more than Rs. 20,000/-. He is also the managing partner of the firm (M.S. Rao & Sons) which is a registered firm, and also registered under the Orissa Money Lenders Act bearing certificates 124/26/37 dated 31-5-1951, 28-3-1956 and 20-3-1961. The two certificates of registration namely 1st certificate dated 5-5.1950 (ext. l/a) and the second (renewal) certificate dated 31.5-1955 (ext. 1) bearing No. 1/23 have been proved in this case. On the Plaintiff's averment in the plaint the firm of M.S. Rao & Sons of which he is the managing partner and which has a separate certificate of registration is a distinct legal entity from the Plaintiff, who is separately registered as a money-lender. While giving evidence in Court also he kept up this distinction between the firm M.S. Rao & Sons which is also a money-lender, and the Plaintiff in his personal capacity. He further stated that the disputed loan was advanced by him from his personal funds. He also proved the entry ex. 4 in his account book in support of this statement. It is not the Plaintiff's case that apart from exts. He further stated that the disputed loan was advanced by him from his personal funds. He also proved the entry ex. 4 in his account book in support of this statement. It is not the Plaintiff's case that apart from exts. 1 and 1/a there is any other certificate of registration in favour of the Plaintiff. But exts. 1 and 1/a show that the registered money-lenders were four persons namely, M. Subba Rao, son of late M.V. Chetty, and his three sons, namely, M.V. Rao, M.K.C. Rao, and M. Satyanarayan Rao. The certificates do not say that that group of individuals forms a Hindu undivided family. The Plaintiff also did not take any such plea but on the other hand expressly asserted that the loan in question was given by him from his personal funds. 7. Section 8 of the Orissa Money-lenders Act bars the right of a professional money-lender to institute a suit for the recovery of a loan advanced by him unless he is registered under that Act at the time when loan was advanced. M. Dasgupta urged that, as admittedly the Plaintiff did not get himself separately registered as a moneylender in respect of his personal transactions, the suit must be held to be non-maintainable. On behalf of the Appellant, however, it was urged that the certificate ext. 1, in which the name of the Plaintiff is included, would suffice for the purpose of Section 8 of the Act. 8. It is now necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Orissa Money-lenders Act. Clause (j) of Section 2, (omitting immaterial portions) defines a "money-lender" as follows: Money-lender' means, in Sections, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18 and 19 a person who advances loan in the course of money-lending and shall include a Hindu undivided family and the legal representatives and successors-in-interest, whether by inheritance, assignment or otherwise of such a person who advances a loan. Section 5 provides for the registration of money-lenders and Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of that section authorises the Applicant to state "the name and style under which he desires to carry on business as a money-lender. 9. The expression 'person' has been defined in the Orissa General Clauses Act as follows: "person" shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not see Section 2(13). 9. The expression 'person' has been defined in the Orissa General Clauses Act as follows: "person" shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not see Section 2(13). Thus a 'money-lender' may consist of the following classes of legal persons (1) an individual, (2) a firm of partners, (3) an association or body of individuals unincorporated, (4) an association or body of individuals incorporated, and (5) a Hindu undivided family. 10. But to escape the ban of section of 8 of the Orissa Money-lenders Act, it is necessary that the money-lender who brings a suit for the recovery of a loan must be either identical with the money-lender who got himself registered, or else his legal representative or successor-in-interest. Doubtless, if the registration certificate was issued in the name of a Hindu undivided family and the loan had been advanced on behalf of the family the Karta may bring the suit and escape the ban of Section 8 of the Act. But in all other cases there must be identity between the legal person who got himself registered u/s 5 of the Act and advanced a loan on the one hand, and the person who brought the suit for recovery of the loan on the other-the only exception being in respect of those cases where the latter is the successor-in-interest or the legal representative of the former. 11. Here however that identity is not found. The Plaintiff may be one of the four individuals in whose name the certificate of registration was granted but the loan was advanced by him in his personal capacity out of his personal funds, and in that capacity he cannot be said to be either the legal representative or the successor-in-interest of a group of individuals who obtained a certificate of registration. He has also not stated that they formed a Hindu undivided family or that he is the Karta of that family, or else that the transactions with Defendant No. 1 were on behalf of that family. He has also not stated that they formed a Hindu undivided family or that he is the Karta of that family, or else that the transactions with Defendant No. 1 were on behalf of that family. The very fact that the partnership firm of M.S. Rao & Sons was separately registered and money-lending transactions were separately entered into by that firm and that the Plaintiff, as the managing partner of that firm, was litigating with other debtors, shows that he was fully conscious of the fundamental distinction between his legal position as a money-lender in respect of his personal transactions and his legal position as the managing partner of M.S. Rao & Sons. 12. I am therefore inclined to accept Mr. Dasgupta's contention that the certificate of registration ext. 1 obtained in the name of a group of individuals including the Plaintiff will not suffice to make the Plaintiff a registered money-lender in respect of the loan advanced by him out of his personal funds. For that purpose a separate certificate of registration would be necessary, and in the absence of such certificate the suit would be barred by Section 8 of the Orissa Money-lenders Act. 13. Turning now to the facts of the case, the crucial question for consideration is whether the sole testimony of the Plaintiff (as P.W. 1) can be accepted. It is true that he is a respectable Advocate of Cuttack Bar. But as he is vitally interested in recovering the money which according to him, was advanced to Defendant No. 1, his interested testimony requires some corroboration especially as it is a case of oath against oath. According to him, it was Defendant No. 3 who first told him about Defendant No. 1 and certified that he was a good debtor and re-payer. Defendant No. 3 then requested the Plaintiff to advance the loan to Defendant No. 1 saying that at that time he (Defendant No. 3 had no means to accommodate him. Then the Plaintiff agreed and directly paid the sum of Rs. 1100/- to Defendant No. 1 in the presence of Defendant No. 3. But the hand-note was taken in the name of Defendant No. 3. The obvious question which arises, is-why a shrewd money-lender and litigant like the Plaintiff adopted this circuitous method instead of directly taking the hand-note in his own favour, thereby avoiding all risks. 1100/- to Defendant No. 1 in the presence of Defendant No. 3. But the hand-note was taken in the name of Defendant No. 3. The obvious question which arises, is-why a shrewd money-lender and litigant like the Plaintiff adopted this circuitous method instead of directly taking the hand-note in his own favour, thereby avoiding all risks. His explanation was as follows: The usual interest charged by me was 18 per cent per annum. I asked Defendant No. 3 as to how the advance should be made to Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 stated that it would be better to get the hand-note executed in the name of Defendant No. 3 who charged interest at 74 per cent per annum so that he could release a higher rate of interest and appropriate the excess interest. I agreed and on 30-10-1955 both Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2, along with Defendant No. 3 came to my place for taking the advance of Rs. 11000/- and I advanced the amount to Defendant No. 1 in the presence of Defendants 2 and 3 and Defendant No. 1 executed ext. 2 in my presence. In cross-examination, however, he admitted that Defendant No. 1 was not present when he and Defendant No. 3 entered into the secret agreement about the rate of interest. This explanation requires further scrutiny. It is clear that as between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 the understanding was that the entire interest which was fixed at such a high rate as 74 per cent (strictly speaking it is only 72 per cent) per annum should be realised directly by Defendant No. 3 from Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiff should get his usual interest of 18 per cent per annum, and the excess over that percentage should be appropriated by Defendant No. 3. To a similar effect is the admission of the Plaintiff in paragraph 4 of the plaint as follows: Defendant. No. 3 undertook the responsibility to release the loan from Defendants 1 and 2 on behalf of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff left it entirely to Defendant No. 3 to release the interest from Defendant No. 1 and subsequently when the money was advanced to Defendant No. 1 the secret understanding between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 as regards the interest was not revealed to him. Thus, the Plaintiff left it entirely to Defendant No. 3 to release the interest from Defendant No. 1 and subsequently when the money was advanced to Defendant No. 1 the secret understanding between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 as regards the interest was not revealed to him. The hand-note also was executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 3. Thus whatever may be the secret understanding between Defendant No. 3 and the Plaintiff so far as the debtor (Defendant No. 1) was concerned both Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 represented to him that the lender was really Defendant No. 3 and it was intended that he alone should realize the interest,. Defendant No. 1 would not obviously pay interest to Defendant No. 3 unless the hand-note was in the latter?s name. Hence, it seems fair to infer that as between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 the lender was Defendant No. 3 and the borrower was Defendant No. 1. It may be that the money actually came from the Plaintiff but he did not want to hold himself out as the creditor because he did not want to charge more than the usual rate of interest of 18 per cent per annum. Thus on the admission of the Plaintiff himself there were two distinct transactions one between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 in which the Plaintiff agreed to advance money in the name of Defendant No. 3 so that the latter may be able to charge a higher rate of interest and the other between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 as evidenced by the hand-note (ext. 2). The plea that Defendant No. 3 was a mere benamidar of the Plaintiff so far as the handnote was concerned can hardly stand scrutiny. On the Plaintiff's own admission Defendant No. 3 was not a mere benamidar. He actually wanted him to release a higher rate of interest as fixed in the hand-note (ext. 2) and to give the Plaintiff only 18 per cent and appropriate the excess. The Plaintiff thus intended that Defendant No. 3 should obtain substantial financial benefit out of the very same transaction. A benamidar does not ordinarily derive any financial benefit out of the very same transaction. A benamidar does not ordinarily derive any financial benefit out of the very transaction for which he was the name-lender. The Plaintiff thus intended that Defendant No. 3 should obtain substantial financial benefit out of the very same transaction. A benamidar does not ordinarily derive any financial benefit out of the very same transaction. A benamidar does not ordinarily derive any financial benefit out of the very transaction for which he was the name-lender. The relationship between Defendant No. 3 and the Plaintiff was merely that of a lawyer and his client and it is difficult to believe that for the purely altruistic purpose of enabling Defendant No. 3 to benefit substantially from the transaction the Plaintiff would have taken the risk of having the hand-note executed in favour of Defendant No. 3 though he was the real creditor. The alternative view that the Plaintiff knew that he could not release such a high rate of interest, whereas Defendant No. 3, being a Kabuli could release the same from Defendant No. 1, is preferable. Defendant No. 3 was not a moneylender but the Plaintiff intentionally made him the creditor so far as Defendant No. 1 was concerned-the secret understanding about the interest between him and Defendant No. 3 not being known to Defendant No. 1. As already stated there were thus two transactions (1) advance of money by Plaintiff to Defendant No. 3 and (2) loan by Defendant No. 3 to Defendant No. 1 on the basis of ext. 2. 14. Mr. Dasgupta filed a petition for leading additional evidence in the shape of a subsequent deposition by p.w.r (Plaintiff) which according to him contradicts his depositions in the, present litigation. We are, however, not prepared to allow the additional evidence to be taken at this stage because it cannot be admitted in evidence unless P.W. 1 is confronted with the same and given, 'an opportunity to explain the contradictions. The prayer for additional evidence is therefore rejected. 15. It was urged that there was no motive for the Plaintiffs bring such a false case if Defendant No. 3 was the real creditor. The motive is obvious. The ultimate source of the loan was the Plaintiff. He could not pursue Defendant No. 3 because he ran away to Kabul and the only course left open to him to-release the money was to put forward this ingenious story that Defendant No. 3 was merely a name-lender and that he (Plaintiff) was the real creditor. The motive is obvious. The ultimate source of the loan was the Plaintiff. He could not pursue Defendant No. 3 because he ran away to Kabul and the only course left open to him to-release the money was to put forward this ingenious story that Defendant No. 3 was merely a name-lender and that he (Plaintiff) was the real creditor. He could not obviously afford to loser such a large sum of money without making determined efforts to get the same from Defendant No. 1 who is a local man and is within the jurisdiction of the law courts here. 16. This view is further strengthened if we notice the various' endorsements of payments, made on the reverse side of the hand-note (see exts. 2/a, 2/b, 2/c and 2/d). According to the Plaintiff Defendant No. 1 directly paid him Rs. 1000/- on 21-6-1956 and another' sum of Rs. 1000/- again on 9-7 -1957 and made the necessary endorsement (exts. 2/a and 2/b) in his presence. One B. P Senapati, agent of Defendant No. 1 paid another sum of Rs. 1000/- on 22-5-1957 and made the necessary endorsement, ext 2/c. 'On the subsequent dates, namely, 11-4-1958 and 23-6-1958 two more payments of Rs. 2000/- each were made to the Plaintiff under endorsements written in Urdu. In some of them (exts. 2/c and 2/d) the amount paid is written in numerals but in ext. 2/a the entire amount is written in Urdu. The Plaintiff admitted that he does not know Urdu. It is also admitted that Defendant No. 1 is well-versed in English having written out the hand-note (ext. 2) in his own hand. If really the Plaintiff wag the creditor and the money was paid back by Defendant No. 1 direct there is no reason why the Plaintiff should allow that Defendant to make the endorsements in Urdu especially when the Plaintiff could not understand what was written. By allowing the endorsements of payments to be-written in Urdu, the Plaintiff was taking a great risk because Defendant No. 1 could as well have put in any figure as representing the sum paid. A shrewd money-lender like the Plaintiff would not have taken such risk. By allowing the endorsements of payments to be-written in Urdu, the Plaintiff was taking a great risk because Defendant No. 1 could as well have put in any figure as representing the sum paid. A shrewd money-lender like the Plaintiff would not have taken such risk. On the other hand, the endorsements in Urdu are consistent with the Defendant's case that it was under stood by all concerned that the real creditor was Defendant No. 3 who being a Mussalman must be presumed to have known Urdu language and to have understood what was written in these endorsements on the handnote. 17. It is true that the custody of the original document (ext. 2) came from the side of the Plaintiff but too much importance cannot be attached to this in view of the admitted position that the relationship between him and Defendant No. 3 was that between a lawyer and his client. Plaintiff himself admitted that the said Defendant was a client of his father before he became his own client, and as regards money-lending he used to take advice from the Plaintiff and also from his lawyer. Hence, when Defendant No. 3 was leaving for Kabul it was very easy for him to hand over the hand-note to the Plaintiff in the hope that in view of the Plaintiff's position as an Advocate of Cuttack Bar there could be no difficulty in his realising the money. 18. It was then urged that on the very same date on which the hand-note ext. 2 was executed, viz. 3-10-1955 Defendant No. 1 had taken a loan of Rs. 2,000/- from Defendant No. 3 (see ext. B/3) and that the identity of the dates between extra B/3 and ext. 2, is itself corroborative of the fact that Defendant No. 3 had no money with him to, advance the sum of Rs. 11,OOO/ on the same date and that he had sought the help of the Plaintiff to advance that sum. It is true that Defendant No. 1 had taken two loans one for Rs. 2,000/ and another for Rs. 11,000/- on the same date namely 3-10-1955, but then he was working as a contractor at Hirakud and would have required money urgently in quick; succession in connection with his contract works. Exts. B, B/1 and B/2 show that he had taken loans of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/ and another for Rs. 11,000/- on the same date namely 3-10-1955, but then he was working as a contractor at Hirakud and would have required money urgently in quick; succession in connection with his contract works. Exts. B, B/1 and B/2 show that he had taken loans of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- from Defendant No. 3 on three earlier dates viz. 17-2-1955, 26-5-1955 and 3-5-1955. Assuming that Defendant No. 3 was hard pressed for money on 3-10-1955 and that he was compelled to advance loans on two occasions on the same date, it does not corroborate the Plaintiff?s version in full. It will only show that Defendant No. 3 sought his help in collecting the necessary funds for the purpose of advancing loan to Defendant No. 1. But it would not show that the Plaintiff was the real creditor of Defendant No. 1. I have already shown that the fact that the money ultimately came from the Plaintiff is consistent with the tenor of the hand-note to the effect that as between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3, the latter was held out as the creditor by all concerned-the advance of money by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 3 or on behalf of Defendant No. 3 being a separate transaction between the two. 19. It is true that the Plaintiff produced certain documents marked "X" of Defendant No. 1 from his custody (see exts. X to XIS). According to the Plaintiff these documents were given to him for creating confidence. But according to Defendant No. 1 he handed over these documents to Defendant No. 3 when taking the loan and as the Plaintiff was the lawyer of Defendant No. 3 he might have handed them over to the Plaintiff along with ext. 2. Considering the admitted relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3, no adverse inference can be drawn against Defendant No. 3 merely because the custody of these documents came from the Plaintiff. 20. To sum up therefore the sole testimony of the Plaintiff is not only not corroborated by the circumstances but on the contrary there are telling circumstances to show that he is not the real creditor of Defendant No. 1 so far as the suit transaction is concerned. 20. To sum up therefore the sole testimony of the Plaintiff is not only not corroborated by the circumstances but on the contrary there are telling circumstances to show that he is not the real creditor of Defendant No. 1 so far as the suit transaction is concerned. In view of this finding it is necessary to examine whether Defendant No. 1's evidence to the effect that the entire loan was repaid is believable or not. That is a matter between him and Defendant No. 3 but the Plaintiff's suit must fail on a simple finding of fact that he has not established that he was the real creditor in respect of the suit loan under ext. 2 would accordingly affirm the judgment and the decree of the lower Court and dismiss this appeal with costs. Das, J. 21. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed