JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) PETITIONER Bodhanlal purchased from respondent no. 3 Kejuram 1. 42 acres of land and a house standing thereon for a sum of rs. 1200/- by a registered sale-deed dated 5-3-1968. His name was mutated against the land and house in presence of the respondent No. 3 by the revenue authorities. Possession of the property so sold was delivered, to Petitioner and is still with him. On 2-6-1981, respondent No. 3 Kejuram filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 5 of M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (No. 3 of 1977 ). It was alleged that somewhere in the year 1967-68, Kejuram borrowed a sum of Rs. 500/- and executed the sale-deed with an agreement to re-convey it on payment of the principal amount. The purchaser, viz. , Bodhanlal, the petitioner, was permitted to cultivate the land in lieu of interest. The market price of the land was Rs. 4000/- at the time of transaction. The petitioner filed reply alleging the transaction to be an out and out sale. By order dated 28-8-1981 (Annexure G), the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the application and declared the transaction void. It was also observed that since the petitioner had reaped the crop for so many years, he is also not entitled to the return of the principal amount. This order was upheld by the Collector in appeal vide Annexure K dated 1-3-1982. The petitioner challenges both these orders (Annexures G and k) in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2. ) SHRI R. C. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that since the petitioner is not a lender of money and does not advance loan, the provisions of the Act are not attracted and on this count alone, the application of the respondent No. 3 should have been dismissed. In our opinion, Shri Khares contention is well founded and must be given effect to. ( 3. ) SECTION 2 (d) of the Act No. 3 of 1977 defines lender of money to mean a person advancing loan to a holder of agricultural land, whether registered under the M. P. Money Lenders Act, 1934 or not. In our opinion, Shri Khares contention is well founded and must be given effect to. ( 3. ) SECTION 2 (d) of the Act No. 3 of 1977 defines lender of money to mean a person advancing loan to a holder of agricultural land, whether registered under the M. P. Money Lenders Act, 1934 or not. According to Section 2 (f), a prohibited transaction of loan is a transaction in which a lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural land against security of his interest in land, whether at the time of advancing the loan or at any time thereafter during the currency of the loan in any of the following modes, namely : (iii) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession with a distinct oral understanding that the sale shall not be acted upon if the loan is re-paid;" under the provisions of the Act, a holder of agricultural land in the weaker section of the society is entitled to relief only if he can establish that the transaction in question is a prohibited transaction of loan. In absence of such a finding, it will not be competent for the Sub-Divisional Officer to afford any relief to any holder of agricultural land belonging to weaker section of the society in terms of the Act. From the definition of the term prohibited transaction of loan, as shown above, it is clear that in order to come within the purview of prohibited transaction of loan, the loan must be advanced by a lender of money. According to Section 2 (d), a person can be said to be lender of money only when he is found to be advancing loan to a holder of agricultural land. A stray transaction of loan by a person will not make him a lender of money because in that event the person cannot be possibly held to be advancing loan. The phrase advancing loan necessarily implies a process of advancement of loan as opposed to stray transaction of loan. It is true that a person advancing loan shall be a lender of money for the purpose of Section 2 (d) of the Act even if he is not registered as a money lender under the M. P. Money Lenders Act, 1934. It is true that a person advancing loan shall be a lender of money for the purpose of Section 2 (d) of the Act even if he is not registered as a money lender under the M. P. Money Lenders Act, 1934. That, however, does not mean that who is not so registered under the Money lenders Act but makes stray advance of loan to holder of agricultural land becomes a lender of money. ( 4. ) A reference may also be made in this regard to the long title of the Act and its preamble. It is now well settled that long title of the Act is admissible as an aid to its construction. In G. P. Singhs "principles of Statutory interpretation", 3rd Edition, at page 114, are quoted observations of S. R. Das, J. , in case of Aswini Kumar Ghose vs. Arabinda Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369 , to the following effect : "one cannot but be impressed at once with the wording of the full title of the Act. Although there are observations in earlier English cases that the title is not a part of the statute and is, therefore, to be excluded from consideration in construing the statutes, it is now settled law that the title of a statute is an important part of the Act and may be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining its general scope and of throwing light on its construction, although it cannot override the clear meaning of the enactment. " In a later decision, in Poppatlal vs. State of Madras, AIR 1953 SC 274 , the title of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, was utilised to indicate that the object of the Act is to impose taxes on sales that take place within the province. In manoharlal vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 418 , Ayyangar, J. held that the long title of the Act - on which learned counsel placed considerable reliance as a guide for the determination of the scope of the Act and the policy underlying the legislation, no doubt, indicates the main purposes of the enactment but cannot, obviously, control the express operative provisions of the Act See g. P. Singhs principles of Statutory Interpretation, 3rd Edition, pp. 116, 117 and 118. ( 5. 116, 117 and 118. ( 5. ) A preamble of the Act is said to be a key to open the minds of the makers of the Act, and the mischiefs which they intended to redress. However, it is only when it conveys a clear and definite meaning in comparison with relatively obscure or indefinite enacting words that the preamble may legitimately prevail. in fact, if the preamble were clear one way and the enacting part were equally clear the other way, there can be no doubt that the latter must prevail. From the definition of the term "lender of money" as used in Section 2 (d) of the Act, as we have stated above, it does not appear very clear whether a person making a single or stray advance of loan to a holder of agricultural land is also within its sweep. It will, therefore, be permissible to ascribe a correct meaning to that term by a reference to the long title of the Act and its preamble. The title of the Act, which we have reproduced above, seeks to relieve the agriculturists belonging to weaker section of the society from the clutches of money lenders [ * * * ]. The expression "w\k " reasonably applies to those who engage themselves in advancing loan. This inference is further fortified from the preamble of the Act. Part of the preamble is as follows : "an Act to better economic condition of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people by providing further relief from agricultural indebtedness by nullifying the land grabbing designs resorted to in many forms by lenders of money while and after extending credit to them and matters connected therewith. Whereas a holder of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people is quite often compelled to seek loan from private money lending agencies to meet his various obligations of urgent nature. " in the first part, we find the expression lenders of money. This is indicative of the fact that the relief is provided against those who are lenders of money, i. e. , who are lending money or are moneylenders. " in the first part, we find the expression lenders of money. This is indicative of the fact that the relief is provided against those who are lenders of money, i. e. , who are lending money or are moneylenders. Similarly, the expression "private money lending agencies", occurring in the second part of the preamble, also signifies that the agriculturists are sought to be relieved against evil designs of grabbing land by advancement of loans by "private money lending agencies," i. e. , such persons or agencies who carry on money lending. As a necessary corollary, it follows from the expressions "[ * * * ]", "lenders of money" and "private money lending agencies", as used in the long title and the preamble of the Act, that stray transaction of advance of loan by any person even to holder of an agricultural land belonging to weaker sections of the society was never in contemplation and was not intended to be affected by the various provisions of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court, in Narmada Shankar vs. Collector, Dhar, 1985 MPLJ 444 . has observed in para 12 of the judgment, that "a stray transaction would not come under the provisions of the said Act unless and until it is proved that the person who has lent money is a lender of money. This observation lends support to the view that we have taken of the term "lender of money. " ( 6. ) IN the present case, it appears that neither the Sub-Divisional Officer nor the Collector was alive to this situation. Precisely for this reason none of them has referred to this aspect of the matter. We, however, find that the parties were permitted to lead evidence before the Sub-Divisional Officer and they did adduce some evidence. Bodha Das, one of the witnesses examined by the respondent No. 3 himself has stated in examination-in-chief that the petitioner does not carry on money lending ( TOj Wfl ). The petitioner, as a witness for himself, has deposed that he was a teacher and that he was not doing any money lending. The land was purchased by him after payment of full consideration. He was not cross-examined at all. This fact has also been admitted by Hanuman Prasad, another witness for the respondent. This Hanuman Prasad, however, has deposed that the petitioner carries on money lending in village. The land was purchased by him after payment of full consideration. He was not cross-examined at all. This fact has also been admitted by Hanuman Prasad, another witness for the respondent. This Hanuman Prasad, however, has deposed that the petitioner carries on money lending in village. It is, significant that even the respondent Kejuram has not stated that the petitioner does money lending or advances loans. In this view of the matter and in view of the admitted position that the petitioner is a teacher, and further in view of the fact that apart from the transaction in question, it has not been demonstrated that the petitioner has advanced loan to any other person, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner is a person advancing loan to the holder of agricultural land. The transaction in question, therefore, cannot be said to be a prohibited transaction of loan even if it is found that the transaction was not an out and out sale. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of the Act are not attracted in the present case and the application filed by the respondent No. 3 before the Sub-Divisional Officer deserves to be rejected. ( 7. ) THE petition is allowed. The order dated 28-8-1981 (Annexure G)passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the order dated 1-3-1982 (Annexure K) passed in appeal by the Collector are hereby quashed. Respondent No. 3s application dated 2-6-1981 (Annexure C) filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.