JUDGMENT Verma, J. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant of Money Suit no. 1/13 of 1960/1961, which was decided against him by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur. The money suit was brought for recovery of Rs. 11,656/- as principal and Rs. 6,110/7/-as interest claimed under a hand-note alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 1.8.55. 2. The case of the plaintiff, in short, was that the defendant, as the Karta and the managing member of his joint family, borrowed a sum of Rs. 11656/-in cash from him and executed a hand-note in proof thereof promising to pay back the amount of principal and interest at the rate of 1 per cent per month on demand. According to the plaintiff the amount was taken for family necessities, namely, purchase of bullocks, reconstruction of a portion of the house and payment of odd debts of other creditors. On 22.2.58 the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 75 and made the endorsement concerning the same per his own pen on the back of the hand note and also put his thumb mark on it. The plaintiff appropriated this amount towards interest due on the loan. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed that the principal and the balance of the interest, totalling Rs. 17,766/7/- (i. e. 44 paise) was not paid by the defendant in spite of several demands and service of a notice which was sent to him on 29.12.59. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant who filed a written statement admitting the execution of the hand-note, but contending, inter alia, that no cash was paid to him on the alleged date of the execution of the hand-note. According to him, there was previous monetary transactions with the plaintiff beginning from 6th Magh 1357 Fs., when he first took a sum of Rs. 550/- from him. Thereafter several small borrowings continued till the 2nd Chait, 1359 Fs. when a sum of Rs. 75 was borrowed for the last time. According to the defendant, a total sum of Rs. 8,766/- had been borrowed from the plaintiff. He also went on paying some portions of his debts in several instalments between lath Magh, 1357 Fs. and 2nd Baisakh, 1360 Fs. On 14th Savan, 1362 Fs. the defendant delivered castor seeds worth Rs. 379/7/6 to the plaintiff. In all he had paid a total sum of Rs. 2756/7/6. 8,766/- had been borrowed from the plaintiff. He also went on paying some portions of his debts in several instalments between lath Magh, 1357 Fs. and 2nd Baisakh, 1360 Fs. On 14th Savan, 1362 Fs. the defendant delivered castor seeds worth Rs. 379/7/6 to the plaintiff. In all he had paid a total sum of Rs. 2756/7/6. On 1.8.55 the defendant was called by the plaintiff and told that Rs. 11,656/11/-annas came as the amount due with him after making a proper account and so for this amount a hand-note should be executed. Under undue pressure and on the assurance that at the time of payment all the compound interest included in this amount would be remitted, the defendant had to execute the hand-note in question. The plaintiff had assured him that he would charge only simple interest throughout. Concerning the payment of Rs. 75/- which was appropriated by the plaintiff towards interest on 22.6.58, it was alleged that he had paid only Rs. 50 on 17th Jeth 1360 Fs. and a sum of Rs. 14/- only was paid on 22.6.58. The plaintiff calculated interest on the sum of Rs. 50/- which came to Rs. 11/- and so he allowed a total sum of Rs. 75/- to be deducted from the total interest as due on the hand note on that date. According to him, the defendant endorsed a payment of Rs. 75/- on the back of the hand-note. The defendant further alleged that the plaintiff never demanded the return of money at any time and he never received any pleader's notice which is alleged to have been sent to him by the plaintiff's advocate. Rather, it was the defendant who was anxious to payoff the dues of the plaintiff after proper accounting and for this work he had approached the plaintiff several times to make a proper accounting after leaving the compound interest so that the defendant may clear the dues. The defendant, therefore, challenged the claim of the plaintiff and prayed that no decree for that amount could be passed against him. 4. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge framed as many as 6 issues in the case. His main findings were that the suit was not barred by limitation because the acknowledgement of the debt, which was made within the period of limitation, saved the claim of the plaintiff from the bar of the limitation. 4. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge framed as many as 6 issues in the case. His main findings were that the suit was not barred by limitation because the acknowledgement of the debt, which was made within the period of limitation, saved the claim of the plaintiff from the bar of the limitation. He further found tint the hand note was for cash loan and not on account of previous transactions. According to him, the defendant had borrowed this money for the necessities of the joint family of which he was the Karta and the managing member. He, therefore, decreed the suit on contest with costs and pleader's fee at 2½ percent and future interest at 6 percent per annum. 5. On behalf of the appellant learned counsel, Sri S. N. Dutta, had strenuously argued that the defence put-forth on behalf of the appellant in the court below should be accepted. He based his argument mainly on two points. Firstly he contended that this advance was not made by any round figure which is generally done in such transactions. The figure of Rs. 11,656/- would, in itself, go to indicate that this amount was arrived at after due calculation of previous transactions. His second point was that the plaintiff did maintain Bahi-Khata account but he did not produce the same in court in spite of the serious allegation made by the defendant that all the transactions, which passed between himself and the plaintiff, had been duly entered in the Bahi - Khata of the plaintiff. 6. In order to prove this case the plaintiff examined 7 witnesses on his behalf. P.W. 1, Santoshi Jha, stated that the defendant had taken him to the plaintiff when both he and the defendant were coming together after taking their bath in the Ganges. According to him, the defendant took the entire amount in cash and executed the hand-note (Ext. 1). The endorsement of the defendant was marked as Ext. 1 (a). As a matter of fact, the execution of the hand-note or the endorsement made thereon has not been challenged by the defendant; rather he has accepted them to be in his pen. This witness further said that the defendant had demanded Rs. 12,000/- but when the plaintiff brought out the money, it was only Rs. 1 (a). As a matter of fact, the execution of the hand-note or the endorsement made thereon has not been challenged by the defendant; rather he has accepted them to be in his pen. This witness further said that the defendant had demanded Rs. 12,000/- but when the plaintiff brought out the money, it was only Rs. 11,656/- and so only this amount was given to the defendant and mentioned as such in the hand-note (Ext. 1). He further said that the amount was borrowed for the necessities of the family. The defendant's son, Baikunth Prasad Singh, had died of phthisis and was ill for 2 to 3 years and a huge sum of money had been spent for his treatment by the defendant. After his death the room in which Baikunth lived was demolished and it was rebuilt. He further said that Choa Lal, since deceased, Anirudh Sah, P. W. 6, Sadanand Das P. W. 4 Bhubneshwar Jha etc. were present on that occasion. His evidence is fully supported by Kishun Sah, P. W. 2, who had gone to purchase Kalai from the gola of the plaintiff. He also said that the entire amount in cash was given to the defendant and he and other witnesses had assured the plaintiff that the amount was needed for the necessities of defendant's family. Sadanand Das, P.W. 4, was the karpardaz of Suraj Balli Sah, a nephew of the plaintiff. The gaddi of Suraj Balli is adjacent to that of the plaintiff on the same verandah. This witness was sitting at his gaddi only two cubits away from the plaintiff's gaddi and he also said that this amount was paid in his presence in cash. P. W. 6, Anirudh Sahu, is in service of Rajeshwar Babu, a son of the plaintiff. He is the scribe of the hand-note. He has said that the defendant wanted Rs. 12,000/- from the plaintiff but this amount was not given on that date; rather it was given 3 or 4 days after. Meanwhile, the plaintiff had asked him to make enquiry if the money was really needed. He made enquiries and satisfied the plaintiff about the existence of legal necessities. In his presence the entire amount, covered by the hand-note, was paid in cash this witness further stated that the defendant had sent Rs. Meanwhile, the plaintiff had asked him to make enquiry if the money was really needed. He made enquiries and satisfied the plaintiff about the existence of legal necessities. In his presence the entire amount, covered by the hand-note, was paid in cash this witness further stated that the defendant had sent Rs. 50/- on the occasion of the sradh of the mother of the plaintiff for which the plaintiff gave a receipt on the 17th Jeth, 1363 Fs. This receipt has been marked as Ext. A on admission. Both according to this witness as well as Gorelal Jha, (P. W. 3), the defendant paid Rs. 25/- personally in Asarh, 1365 i.e. 22nd June, 1958. The plaintiff had asked the defendant to return the receipt for Rs. 50/- but the defendant gave out that he had not brought the same. Thereafter an endorsement for Rs. 75/- was made on the back of the hand-note by the defendant himself, Ext. 1 (b). This witness further said that the plaintiff did not maintain any Rokar or Khata Bahis. The plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 7. He also supported his own case and also supported the version of the other witnesses. He further stated that he also made enquiries about the family necessities from 5 persons who were gotias of the defendant. His evidence shows that he does not pay any income tax. His attention was drawn to the recital in Ext. A in which-he had written that Rs. 50/- had been received through the defendant's man and credited to defendant's account. By "khata" he meant "ledger" and not a regular Bahikhata, but only the memorandum of account (Ext. 6). This document, which is on a piece of paper, shows that Rs. 50/- had been received through the man of the defendant and then Rs. 25/through another man of his and the total came to Rs. 75/-. On the debit side it was written "Rokar dated 1.8.55 amounting to Rs. 11,656/-". It is, therefore, clear that the case of advance of Rs. 11, 656/- in cash has been proved by a number of witnesses who have well stood the test of cross-examination. The explanation that as only this amount was available and the whole of this amount was to be taken by the defendant, the hand-note could not be executed for a round figure, say, Rs. 10,000, Rs. 11, 656/- in cash has been proved by a number of witnesses who have well stood the test of cross-examination. The explanation that as only this amount was available and the whole of this amount was to be taken by the defendant, the hand-note could not be executed for a round figure, say, Rs. 10,000, Rs. 11,000 and so on, cannot be said to be improbable. When there is a complete denial of existence of Bahi-Khata on behalf of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act should be drawn up against the plaintiff. If the plaintiff had admitted the presence of Bahi Khata or if it was established on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff did maintain Bahi-Khata account, then only the non-production of the relevant books of account would lead to an adverse presumption against the plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn my attention to Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881. This section lays down a special rule of evidence applicable to negotiable instruments. The presumption is one of law and thereunder a court shall presume inter alia that the negotiable instrument or the endorsement was made or endorsed for consideration. In effect, it throws the burden of proof on failure of the consideration on the maker of the note or the endorser as the case may be. But, this presumption is rebuttable and if there is satisfactory evidence to the contrary, the presumption may not apply. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that according to the provisions of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, every registered money-lender shall in respect of every loan advanced by him regularly record and maintain an account showing the date of loan, the amount of principal of loan, the rate of interest charged, the amount of every payment received with the date thereof and so on. So, it must be presumed that the plaintiff, being a registered money-lender, must be keeping this account. So, it must be presumed that the plaintiff, being a registered money-lender, must be keeping this account. But, the law is clear on the point that if the court fin is in any suit brought in respect of a loan by a registered money-lender that he is guilty of fraud or of any contravention of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, the court has to make a report to the Collector for taking steps against such a money-lender and Section 20 of the Act provides the penalty for the contravention of the provisions relating to such omissions. The law nowhere lays down that in such circumstances the claim of the plaintiff would be thrown out. The only power, which has been given under this Act, is one under Section 7, which provides that the court will not allow any interest in excess of the amount of loan mentioned in or evidenced by the document under which the advance was made. Of course, in the present case, the plaintiff has not claimed any amount by way of interest which is more than the original advance. In the case of (1) Ramnandan Prasad V. Kapildeo Ramji (A. I. R. 1951 S. C. 155) it was held that the consistent view of the Patna High Court in the cases of (2) Singheshwar Singh V. Medni Prasad (A. I. R. 1940 Patna 65), (3) Madho Prasad V. Mukutdhari Singh (A. I. R 1941 Patna, 378), (4) Lal Singh V. Ram Narain Ram (A. I. R. 1942 Patna 138) and (5) Deonandan Prasad V. Ram Prasad (A. I. R. 1944 Patna 303), placed upon this section and the interpretation that the loan under this section must relate to the document on which the suit is based, that is, the final document and not the original one, must be accepted. This construction no doubt enables a creditor to circumvent the beneficent provisions of the Act by taking a document for the interest due and adding it to the principal amount. But, the Legislature has acquiesced during all these years in the construction which the Patna High Court has been placing upon the section ever since the year 1940. This construction no doubt enables a creditor to circumvent the beneficent provisions of the Act by taking a document for the interest due and adding it to the principal amount. But, the Legislature has acquiesced during all these years in the construction which the Patna High Court has been placing upon the section ever since the year 1940. In my considered opinion, therefore, the defendant cannot call upon the court to reopen the transaction and try to find out what the original advances were from time to time and what amounts, in several instalments, were paid from time to time. 9. This brings me to the discussion of the evidence which the defendant has given in this connection. On behalf of the defendant, four witnesses were examined. D. W. 1, Charitar Mandal, who is an employee at the hospital at Khagra, formerly worked for the defendant. He has spoken only about the payment of Rs. 501 when the receipt (Ext. A) was granted. He has said that this amount was noted in the Khata. Bahi of the plaintiff. D. W. 2, Jagannath Prasad Singh, is a nephew of the defendant. He has said that the plaintiff maintained Bahi-Khata. According to him, he brought money from the plaintiff for the b2nefit of the defendant and gave back money to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. He further said that he had got accounts written by the plaintiff himself, but curiously enough, those accounts were not produced in court. D.W. 3, Bodh Narayan Singh, has stated that he had accompanied the defendant to the plaintiff's house when the account was done on the basis of Bahi-Khata and the hand-note was executed. The last witness examined on behalf of the defendant was the defendant himself. His evidence is not clear and no definite conclusion can be arrived at in this state of vagueness. He no doubt produced his own Bahi Khata account and the entries were marked Ext. B to B (36), but he himself admitted that the entries were not made in regular course of business. According to him, his total debt came to Rs. 8,766/- and his total payment came to Rs. 2,756/7/6 pies. But, it must be pointed out that there is no reliable document to arrive at these figures. B to B (36), but he himself admitted that the entries were not made in regular course of business. According to him, his total debt came to Rs. 8,766/- and his total payment came to Rs. 2,756/7/6 pies. But, it must be pointed out that there is no reliable document to arrive at these figures. He clearly admitted that he had not calculated, even till the time of his deposition, as to what amount was really due from him to the plaintiff. He further said that Siro Sah took the castor seeds on behalf of the plaintiff, but the name of Siro Sah was not mentioned anywhere. He further Slid that Charitar Mandal was present, but this Charitar Mandal, who was examined as D. W. 1, does not speak a word about the supply of castor seeds. The defendant could not say what was the principal amount and what was the compound interest which was calculated thereon. His evidence further shows that his son was ill of phthisis for 2 to 3 years and he spent about Rs. 20,000 over his treatment. He no doubt gives a different date of the death of his son, but he did not produce the death certificate which he had admittedly taken for the purpose of life insurance payment. It may be further pointed out that the question of the loan having been advanced for legal necessity was not convassed before us, though the learned Additional Subordinate Judge had come to the conclusion that it was for the legal necessities of the joint family. That matter would really assume importance when the decree would be put into execution. At present, the suit has been brought only against the defendant himself. 10. So, when all the evidence, facts and circumstances are taken into account, it cannot but be said that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge came to a right conclusion in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as evidenced by the hand-note in question. There may be some truth in what the defendant says, but on compassionate or any other ground, no relief can be given to him if the same is not obtainable on the basis of the evidence given in the case. I do not see any justification to interfere with the findings of the court below. There may be some truth in what the defendant says, but on compassionate or any other ground, no relief can be given to him if the same is not obtainable on the basis of the evidence given in the case. I do not see any justification to interfere with the findings of the court below. The result, therefore, is that there being no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. A. B. N. SINHA, J. I agree.