LAXMESHWAR, J. ,, J. ( 1 ) THE above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15-11-1983, passed on issue No. 2 and 3 in o. S. No. 119/1981 by the Civiljudge, mandya. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: that the plaintiff filed a suit contending that the defendant as a manager of the joint family, for legal necessity and to install a huller and floor mill in his village borrowed a sum of Rs. 10. 000/- from the plaintiff on the mortgage security of the schedule house agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs. 125/- permensum and he executed a registered simple mortgage deed dated 1-2-1974. As the defendants did not re-pay the payments on repeated request, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20. 000/- including interest etc. ( 3 ) THE defendant filed written statement contending inter alia that suit is barred Suit recitals are not true and they are not due to pay Rs. 20,000/- and contended that the plaintiff and his father manickchand Ranka are members of the joint family. The plaintiff is a money lender doing business of money lending as per the Provisions of the Karnataka money Lenders Act. That the shop is running in the name of the Manickchand ranka. The plaintiff and his father are doing joint family business in the said name, in addition to money lending business they are doing the business of pawn broke also. The shop is situated at maddur and that the suit transaction relates to the joint family business. He also contended that the plaintiff even though he is a money lender has not complied with the Provisions of Money lending Act and he has not given the statement to the defendant within 30 days from the date of the loan. He has not also given any pass book as required under Section 21 of the Karnataka Money lenders Act and under the Provisions of section 21 (2) of the Money Lenders Act. Since the plaintiff has not complied with the Provisions of Section 20 and 21 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act and that the interest and court costs has to be disallowed under Section 24 of the karnataka Money Lenders Act. The defendant also contended that he has paid in all Rs. 7. Since the plaintiff has not complied with the Provisions of Section 20 and 21 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act and that the interest and court costs has to be disallowed under Section 24 of the karnataka Money Lenders Act. The defendant also contended that he has paid in all Rs. 7. 200/- to the plaintiff and that the interest and costs may be disallowed under Section 24 of the Karnataka money Lenders Act for non-compliance by the plaintiff the provisions of section 20 and 21 of the Karnataka money Lenders Act and the suit be decreed for a sum of Rs. 10. 000/- only. ( 4 ) 4 On the above pleadings the learned civil Judge framed the following issues:1) Does the plaintiff prove that the original mortgage deed dated 1-2-1974 is mis-placed and hence he could not produce the same ? 2) Does the defendant proves that plaintiff is a money lender as per Karnataka money Lenders Act and further proves that the suit transaction is done on behalf of joint family of plaintiff and his father ? 3) Does he further prove that the plaintiff has committed breach of provisions of Section 21 (2) and other provisions of the Act and hence is not entitled for costs and interest ? 4) Does he prove that an endorsement as made on the original mortgage deed for payment of interest of Rs. 4. 500/- as alleged in para-8 of the written statement ? 5) Does he further prove that he has paid Rs. 7200/- towards interest? 6) What order and decree? out of the issues, issues 2 and 3 relate to the Money Lenders Act. Therefore, the learned judge tried as preliminary issues and opportunities were given to the parties to adduce their evidence in respect of issues 2 and 3. ( 5 ) 5. The plaintiff examined as P. W. 1 in support of his case. The defendant examined two witnesses including himself as D. W. 1 got marked Ex. D-1 to D-8 in support of his contention. Arguments were heard and after due consideration, the learned judge passed the impugned order holding that the plaintiff to be a money lender and he ought to have complied the Provisions of Section 20 of the karnataka Money Lenders Act. It was also held that Provisions of Section 20 and 21 were complied with. Therefore section 24 comes into play. Arguments were heard and after due consideration, the learned judge passed the impugned order holding that the plaintiff to be a money lender and he ought to have complied the Provisions of Section 20 of the karnataka Money Lenders Act. It was also held that Provisions of Section 20 and 21 were complied with. Therefore section 24 comes into play. According to Section 24, the plaintiff being a money lender is not entitled to pay interest and court costs! The learned judge decided in affirmative both these issues. The petitioner-plaintiff being aggrieved, preferred the above revision. ( 6 ) 6. Sri C. N Kamath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his client is not a money lender and he does not have license, he has nothing to do with his father or much less his business. He does not know as to whether, his father was holding a money lender licence, therefore compliance under Section 20 and 21 of the Money Lenders Act does not arise. Wherefore, Provisions of section 24 of the Money Lenders Act, cannot be invoked. The learned counsel submitted that the learned judge misconstrued the whole things First of all, he is not a money lender as required under the Provisions of the Act, therefore the question of compliance of Section 20 and 21 does not arise at all. The approach is wrong, so far as, compliance under section 20 and 21 are concerned. It commences like this, "duty of money-lender to keep accounts and furnish copies". The question of compliance does not arise at all. When there is practically no evidence to show that plaintiff is a money lender, the learned judge has wrongly approached the provisions and he has mis applied the provisions of the Act. ( 7 ) 7. As against this, Sri Papanna learned counsel for the respondent sub-mitted that he fully supports the judgment of the lower court. He also submits that the learned judge has taken into consideration all aspects. He also submitted that the plaintiff was summoned to produce documents particularly accounts pertaining to money lending business of his father viz. , the joint family, that of his wife about whom the plaintiff had admitted that she is doing 'leva devi' business. ( 8 ) 8. He also submits that the learned judge has taken into consideration all aspects. He also submitted that the plaintiff was summoned to produce documents particularly accounts pertaining to money lending business of his father viz. , the joint family, that of his wife about whom the plaintiff had admitted that she is doing 'leva devi' business. ( 8 ) 8. The learned counsel Sri C. N. Kamath, said that the plaintiff has said that he has paid the amount from his business of fertilizers. If that was the case, the mode of proving, substantiate, he ought to have produced his individual business accounts 10 substantiate his condition, that he paid the amount from his own account. Firstly, he contended that he stayed with his wife in the house of his father. Therefore, he is a member of Hindu undivided family and if it is a family of business, he is a member of the joint business. Therefore, the licence that was given in the name of the head of the family, is concerned to him. He alternatively submitted that the plaintiff has unequivocal terms admitted that his wife is doing pawn brokage and also 'leva devi business. The plaintiff has admitted that he sits in the shop of h s wife. But he wantenly supress many things. He says, he is taking salary for sitting in the shop, looking after business. It is only, his wife, who knows all things. It is his wife who pay income tax etc. Wherefore, the inference will to be drawn that he is a member of Hindu undivided family, consisting of his father, himself and his wife has admitted that he is staying with his wife, who is doing money lending business. Therefore that is also business of the family. Nobody can believe that whatever, the wife earns, it is only for herself. The benefit of the business goes to the members of the family consisting of the plaintiff and his wife. Wherefore, either way he is a money lender. Therefore, the learned Civil judge, has mentioned in his judgment about non-compliance of Section 20 and 21 of the Act. ( 9 ) 9. Now, it is admitted fact that the defendant has borrowed a loan of Rs. 10. 000/- from the plaintiff by executing a simple mortgage deed dated 1-2-1974. Wherefore, either way he is a money lender. Therefore, the learned Civil judge, has mentioned in his judgment about non-compliance of Section 20 and 21 of the Act. ( 9 ) 9. Now, it is admitted fact that the defendant has borrowed a loan of Rs. 10. 000/- from the plaintiff by executing a simple mortgage deed dated 1-2-1974. It is also in evidence, that father, son, sons wife are living under the same roof, and does not establish or lead any evidence to show that they are divided. If the plaintiff wanted to show that it is not a joint family, he ought to have said that he has been brought from his father and some evidence ought to have been led either documentary or oral, but that has not been done. Besides, plaintiff is a business man, who in unequivocal terms, stated that he has given ten thousand rupees from the accounts of his business of fertilizers. He also admitted that he has shown this amount in the accounts, and tax has been paid. But all these materials is kept back. Apart from what has been said in supra, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Kamath contended that there is no plea in the statement pertaining to joint family. Therefore no amount of prove without any plea will be of no assistance. The learned counsel invites my attention 10 Section 2 (9) (h) (ii) that the loan in question advanced to defendant, who has taken for specific purposes Therefore, he is a trader. He had taken loan for trading, therefore does not completely exempted. This is an irrelevent at this stage and this point was never canvassed. It goes the root of the case regarding maintainability. ( 10 ) 10. As against this, Sri Papanna. learned counsel for respondent pointed out from the evidence of Gowthamachand, that the plaintiff evidence which I have reproduced below; The plaintiff has not produced any accounts or documents to show that he is independently doing business in fertilizers. The defendants by filing memo directed the plaintiff and his father to produce account books to know whether the plaintiff is doing independent business or whether he is doing joint family business. Neither plaintiff nor his father produced any account books. The learned civil Judge, drew an adverse inference, as they failed to produce in spite of notice issued. The defendants by filing memo directed the plaintiff and his father to produce account books to know whether the plaintiff is doing independent business or whether he is doing joint family business. Neither plaintiff nor his father produced any account books. The learned civil Judge, drew an adverse inference, as they failed to produce in spite of notice issued. The learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in 1982 (1) Karnataka Law Journal - Page 45. In that decision it is held that "if a relevant piece of evidence is withheld by plaintiff Section 114 of Evidence Act enables the court to draw the presumption that the said evidence would be unfavourable to the plaintiff". If really the plaintiff was carrying on his business in fertilizers independently, he would have certainly produced the account books, that he has paid Rs. 10,000/- from that business. Any production of account books clearly says that he is doing business as a member of the joint family. Otherwise a big sum of Rs. 10,000/- was with him. The plaintiff's father, mother and his wife are having money lending licence and doing the business. In a decision reported in AIR 1959 Patna page 246 it is held that:"when a Nucleus of joint family is a proved or admitted the presumption arises that the whole of the property of the joint family is joint including any acquisition by a member of the joint family". In another decision reported in AIR 1978 Punjab and Haryana Page 146 it is held that,"hindu joint family does not seize to be joint family merely because a part of it stands in the name of different persons of the family". But, in the instant case, the evidence goes to show that the plaintiff is staying or residing under the same roof, with his father, mother and his wife. Of course, this is one of the circumstance or a character which goes to show that they are living in a joint family. If it was not a joint famijy, the plaintiff to led evidence that he has separated or oral partition by the intervention of some elders. This also not there. Therefore, when it is not established it could easily be inferred that it is a joint family, as held by the learned judge. If it was not a joint famijy, the plaintiff to led evidence that he has separated or oral partition by the intervention of some elders. This also not there. Therefore, when it is not established it could easily be inferred that it is a joint family, as held by the learned judge. Under these circumstances, the only inference that can be drawn that non production of account books, that he has not actually lending the money from out of his own earnings, but it was out of the family funds. ( 11 ) 11. Wherefore, under the facts and circumstances as already stated supra, I am inclined to hold that the plaintiff is a money lender and that he has paid Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant without obtaining any licence as contemplated under the Provisions of the Money lenders Act. ( 12 ) 12. In the result, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .