JUDGMENT : A. Misra, J. - The Plaintiff-Appellant's case is that the Defendant being in need of money borrowed Rs. 5, 000/- from her on 21.8.1962 and Executed the suit document agreeing to repay the same with interest at Rs. 40/- per thousand within one month from the date of The loan. In spite of repeated demands, as the Defendant failed to repay The amount, the present suit was instituted. 2. The Defendant denied to have incurred the loan. According to him, the Plaintiff, Srimati Bhanumati Devi and Srimati Chandramukhi Devi, wife of Shri Y.N. Singh, M.P. were Directors of the C.T.C. Company (Private) Limited, of which, Sri L.M. Kalo was the Works Manager and Power-of attorney bolder and Shri Hariram Singh alias Indu Babu was The Supervisor. Sometime in August, 1962, Shri Y.N. Singh who was at Delhi being in great need of money pressed upon the employees of The company to send him some amount. When Shri Kalo and Hariram Singh approached the Defendant, he pleaded inability to advance any amount. Thereupon, the said two employees of the company induced the Defendant to execute a note on 21.8.1962 and concealing the real facts obtained Rs. 5.000/- from the Plaintiff. He denies to have received any part of the consideration. Subsequently, after receipt of notice from the Plaintiff, when be approached Shri Kalo and Shri Hariram Singh, they assured that no Action would be taken against him and granted two receipts showing purported repayment of the loan with interest. He further pleads that the present suit is not maintainable under the provisions of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. 3. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial Court recorded the following findings : (1) The Defendant Executed the suit document (Ext. 1); (2) Ext. 1 being a promissory note is not admissible in evidence; (3) Ext. 1 is not supported by consideration and (4) the Plaintiff is not a money-lender, and as such, Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act is no bar to the maintainability of the suit. On the aforesaid findings the suit was dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for Appellant has urged the following points : (1) the Trial Court bas committed a grave error in holding that Ext. 1 is not admissible in evidence construing the same as a promissory note and (2) it has erred in its finding that Ext. On the aforesaid findings the suit was dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for Appellant has urged the following points : (1) the Trial Court bas committed a grave error in holding that Ext. 1 is not admissible in evidence construing the same as a promissory note and (2) it has erred in its finding that Ext. 1 is not supported by consideration. On The other hand, the Defendant-Respondent, while supporting the above two findings of the trial Court, contends that even if the Appellant succeeds on the two points urged by him, the suit is not maintainable, in view of Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act and the finding that the Plaintiff is not a money lender is erroneous. 5. The three points that arise for determination in this appeal are : (1) Whether Ext. 1 is a promissory note, and as such, inadmissible in evidence; (2) Whether it is Supported by consideration and (3) whether the Plaintiff is a money-lender and the maintainability of the suit is hit by Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. 6. Point No. 1- The trial Court by construing the contents of the suit document marked Ext. 1 bas held it to be a promissory note, and as such, inadmissible in evidence under the proviso (a) to Section 35 of The Stamp Act. For the purpose of construing the nature of Ext. 1, the trial Court bad first tested whether it satisfies the definition of the expression ?bond' as defined in Section 2(5) of the Stamp Act., and as it does not fulfill the requirements of The aforementioned definition, it has held it to be a promissory note. Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act defines promissory note as follows: Promissory note means a promissory note as defined by The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881). Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act runs as follows: 4. A ?promissory note' is an instrument in writing (not being 8 bank note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, ascertain person, or to the bearer or the instrument. Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act runs as follows: 4. A ?promissory note' is an instrument in writing (not being 8 bank note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, ascertain person, or to the bearer or the instrument. According to this definition, the essential elements of a promissory note are : (1) It should contain an agreement for the payment of money and money only; (2) the agreement must amount to an undertaking or promise which must be unconditional; (3) the sum payable must be certain; (4) the instrument must be signed by the maker; (5) the money must be payable to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the beware of the instrument and (6) it should not be a bank note or a currency note. It is to be seen whether these elements are satisfied by the contents of Ext. 1 which runs as follows: I Raghava Das Banerjee (Defendant) for meeting my urgent needs receive Rs. 5, 000/- as a loan from Sana Ma with interest at Rs 40/- per month per thousand. I will repay the amount within a month with total interest of Rs. 200/- at the rate of Rs. 40/- per thousand per month. I take this amount with the stipulation for repayment within a month. The terms do not contain any stipulation that the payment should be, to or to the order of a person, or to the bearer of the instrument, nor is there any unconditional undertaking to pay on demand. On the other hand, the terms contain an agreement to pay within a month and interest is limited only to Rs. 200/- at the rate of Rs. 40/- per thousand per month. Therefore, though Ext. 1 does not satisfy the definition of the expression ?bond', it is equally not a promissory note as defined in Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It only contains an acknowledgment of receipt of the money with an agreement to repay it within a, stipulated time together with some amount of interest. This is more in the nature of acknowledgment of the receipt of money containing an agreement to repay within a, stipulated period. It only contains an acknowledgment of receipt of the money with an agreement to repay it within a, stipulated time together with some amount of interest. This is more in the nature of acknowledgment of the receipt of money containing an agreement to repay within a, stipulated period. It was impounded as a receipt and stamp duty and penalty realized before it was admitted in evidence. In view of the terms and stipulations contained in Ext. (sic) the trial Court has clearly erred in construing it as a promissory note. Thus, Ext. 1 not being a promissory note, Section 35(a) of the Stamp Act is not applicable. Disagreeing with the trial Court, I hold that Ext. 1 is admissible in evidence. 7. Point No. 2 The next point for consideration is whether consideration passed under Ext. 1. The trial Court has dealt with this aspect at length and arrived at the finding that though the Defendant Executed Ext. I on 21-8-1962, be did not receive the consideration thereunder and that the Plaintiff did not advance the loan of Rs. 5, 000/- to him on that date. In arriving at this finding, reliance is placed on certain discrepancies in the evidence of p.ws. 1 and 2 about the place where Ext. 1 was said to have been Executed and money advanced, as well as on the fact that Ext. 1 construed as a promissory note is not admissible in evidence. The trial Court, however, failed to notice certain broad features and probabilities which militate against the finding about non passing of consideration. That the Defendant Executed Ext. 1 and the Plaintiff parted with Rs. 5, 000/- under it is amply proved by the evidence on record. In his evidence, the Defendant stated that when he pleaded inability to advance any money, Indu Babu and Shri Kalo requested him to sign a blank paper promising to return it later. So, he signed it and handed it over to them. Thereby, he has purported to suggest that the said blank paper has been utilized to manufacture Ext. 1. This version of the Defendant has not been believed by the trial Court and rightly so. In paragraph 12 of his written statement, it is averred as follows: In order to get some amount, said Shri L.M. Kalo and Shri Hariram Singh misrepresenting and concealing the real facts, brought Rs. 1. This version of the Defendant has not been believed by the trial Court and rightly so. In paragraph 12 of his written statement, it is averred as follows: In order to get some amount, said Shri L.M. Kalo and Shri Hariram Singh misrepresenting and concealing the real facts, brought Rs. 5, 000/- from the widow of the zamindar (Plaintiff) by handing over a note to her, purported to have been signed by the Defendant and written by Hariram Singh. The Defendant does not know if actually any amount was paid to Hariram Singh. Hariram Singh never paid any amount to the Defendant. The averment in paragraph 15 of the written statement is as follows: That the Plaintiff with connivance of his agent i.e. L.M. Kalo and Hariram Singh induced the Defendant to Execute a note dated 21-8-1962 in order to defraud him. It is not suggested much less proved that There is any other document Executed by The Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff. The above averments in the written statement leave no room for doubt that The Defendant Executed Ext. 1 on the strength of which Rs. 5000/- was taken from the Plaintiff. The case of The Defendant in his written statement is that though Ext. 1 was taken from him and Hariram and Kalo brought Rs. 5,000/-, he did not receive any part of the consideration. In view of these clear averments in the written statement, there cannot be any doubt that Ext. 1 was Executed by the Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiff was made to pay Rs. 5, 000/- on the strength of it. Necessarily, the question will arise whether this Rs. 5,000/- was received by the Defendant or Hariram and Kalo managed to take that amount by playing fraud on the Defendant. In such circumstances, the discrepancies, if any, in the evidence about the place of Execution of Ext. 1, whether the Plaintiff as a purdahnashin lady could have been present there to make the payment or whether the Plaintiff due to illiteracy is in a position to count the money, are entirely irrelevant. When the Defendant Executed Ext. 1 on the strength of which the Plaintiff was made to pay Rs. 5, 000/-, the burden is on him to prove the fraud alleged to has been played by Hariram and Kalo. The Defendant has totally failed to establish any such fraud. When the Defendant Executed Ext. 1 on the strength of which the Plaintiff was made to pay Rs. 5, 000/-, the burden is on him to prove the fraud alleged to has been played by Hariram and Kalo. The Defendant has totally failed to establish any such fraud. Apart from it, the plea of The Defendant that he did not receive the consideration under Ext. 1 is inconsistent with his subsequent conduct. Ext. 2 is a copy of lawyer's notice dated 6-3-1964 sent on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Defendant demanding repayment of the dues under Ext. 1. Therein, it is clearly stated that the Defendant took the amount of Rs. 5. 000/- on 21.8.1962 agreeing to repay The same within a month together with Rs. 200/- towards the interest for which a receipt was Executed and that he had failed to repay the same inspite of repeated demands. The Defendant, both in his written statement and evidence, admits to have received Ext. 2. He did not send any reply refuting his liability or denying to have received the consideration. The explanation given by him is that he was surprised to receive such a notice and immediately approached Hariram Singh and L.M. Kalo who assured him not to worry and thereby he was lulled to security. If that was so, there was no reason for his taking two receipts (Exts. A and B) from Indu Babu and Shri Kalo. He would naturally have insisted on a receipt from the Plaintiff. Therefore, this explanation is not at all convincing. Thus, the conduct of the Defendant is inconsistent with his present plea of his having singed Ext. 1 either on a bank paper or on inducement by Hariram and Kalo without receiving any consideration thereunder. For the reasons discussed above, I disagree with the finding of the trial Court and have no hesitation in holding that the Defendant executed Ext. 1 and received the consideration of Rs. 5, 000/-, thereunder. 8. Point No. 3 :-The next point for consideration is whether the maintainability of the suit is hit by the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. 1 and received the consideration of Rs. 5, 000/-, thereunder. 8. Point No. 3 :-The next point for consideration is whether the maintainability of the suit is hit by the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. Under this provision, a ?money-lender' is debarred from instituting a suit for the recovery of a ?loan' advanced by him after the date on which the said section came into force unless he was registered under the Act at the time when such loan was advanced. There is no dispute that Section 8 of the Act was in force on the date the suit loan was advanced. The expression ?money-lender" as defined in Section 2(j) runs as follows: 2(j) ?Money-Lender' means- (1) in Sections 4, 5,6, 7, 8. 18 and 19, a person who advances loan in the regular course of business of money-lending; and (2) in the remaining sections, a person who advances a loan; The maintainability or otherwise of the suit, therefore, depends on the question whether Section 8 is applicable or not and the applicability of Section 8 will depend on the question whether the suit loan was advanced in the regular course of money-lending business. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff was a money lender carrying on a regular course of money-lending business at the date the suit loan was advanced while it is contended for the Plaintiff that she advanced the suit loan to the Defendant by way of accommodation. The amount advanced carried interest, and as such, is a loan as defined in the Act. In her evidence, the Plaintiff admits to have advanced loans to Surendra Pat joshi, Arjun Bohidar and Ydhistir of Hemgir. In her evidence, the Plaintiff also states that she stopped giving loans since two years. In a decision of this Court quoted in Kotini Kashinath Senapathy v. Sadi Brahmanandam ILR 1964 Cutt 941, after review of various decisions the principle of law is enunciated as follows: On examination of authorities, the principle appears to be clear that in deciding the question whether there is regular course of business of money-lending, each case must be decided upon its own facts and peculiar features, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. But one thing is manifest that to hold that the business is in regular course, the Court must record a finding that not only there is a repetition of the loan, but there must be continuity in the transaction and the business of money-lending must be a part and parcel of a system. In the present case, on Plaintiff's own admissions in her evidence, it is clear that till about two years prior to her examination she was engaged in money-lending. Apart from the instances of money-lending specifically admitted by her, she has stated as follows: For the last two years, I have stopped giving loan to anybody. Previous to that, I was advancing loan to poor persons. I cannot give the number of loans. The loans consisted of both money and paddy. These cans did bear an interest of 25% p.a. She was examined on 12.10.966. Thus, till 1964, she was engaged in the business of money and paddy lending. There was not only repetition in advance of loans, but there was continuity in transactions. Therefore, the trial Court was wrong in holding that the present instance was an insulated transaction and that the Plaintiff was not a money-lender. On the evidence, I hold that at the time of advancing the loan, the Plaintiff was a moneylender carrying on regular course of money-lending business. She not having been registered under the Act, the suit is clearly hit by Section 8 of The Orissa. Money Lenders Act, and as such not maintainable. In conclusion, I bold that though Ext. 1 was Executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff and the same is admissible in evidence and that consideration passed to the Defendant under it, the suit is not maintainable u/s 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.