Short Note : The respondent Babulal filed a suit on the basis of a mortgage deed, for a sum of Rs. 5,000 which included the principal amount of Rs. 2,700 as well as interest of Rs. 2,300. The respondent resisted the claim inter alia on the grounds that the appellant was a money-lender and the respondent a cultivator and as the appellant failed to render the accounts under the M.B. Moneylenders Act he was not entitled to any interest till 1-1-59 and that after 1-1-59 the M.P. Money Lenders Act having come into force the appellant was not entitled to claim any interest thereafter as he failed to comply with the provisions of the said Act as well. The trial Court held that the respondent was not an agriculturist for the purpose of the M.B. Money-lenders Act and hence the appellant is entitled to claim interest. The lower appellate Court held that respondent not being an agriculturist, M.B. Money Lenders Act did not apply. However, M.P. Money-lenders Act did apply and he was not entitled to claim interest after 1-11-59, Moreover M.B Interest Act applied to the suit transaction and hence an interest more than 6 per cent could not be claimed. Therefore the decree for Rs. 5,000 passed by the trial Court was reduced to Rs. 2,826.15p. by the lower appellate Court. Hence this second appeal for the claim which was disallowed by lower appellate Court. Held : As on the date when the loan transaction was entered into or on the date when the suit was instituted, the M.B. Interest Act was not in existence on the Statute book, the question of adjudication of the rate of interest in accordance with that Act did not at all arise. It is not disputed that the respondent made repayments on 31-1-60 and thereafter towards the said loan and the said repayments would be governed by the term 'transaction' used in the proviso to S.8 and as such sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the M.P. Money Lenders Act would be attracted. The word 'transaction' is not defined in the M.P. Money Lenders Act or in the General Clauses Act. The word 'transaction' is not defined in the M.P. Money Lenders Act or in the General Clauses Act. However, the use of the expression 'transaction' in S. 3(1)(b) in the context of the definition of 'loan' given in S.2(vii) would indicate that a repayment of a loan would amount to a fresh transaction within the meaning of the proviso to S.8. It is, thus clear that the appellant ought to have sent the yearly, accounts to the respondent showing the transactions of repayment. That having not been done, the appellant disentitled himself from claiming interest on the amount or loan. Therefore, appeal partly allowed and instead of Rs. 2,826.15p. allowed by the lower appellate Court, the sum of Rs.3,702.30 is allowed to the appellant. AIR 1943 Nagpur 240 and AIR 1949 Nagpur, 31 relied. 1955 NLJ 481, distinguished.