JUDGMENT 1. - Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') was intended to put down a very serious evil in the society. It was enacted to keep control over money lending transactions and to see that excessive rate of interest was not charged by money lenders, and the only way that such control can be maintained is by providing penalties for doing money lending business without a proper licence from the State. 2. Pivotal question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff was a money lender at the time he advanced the loan? 3. A few background facts leading to this appeal deserve to be noted at the out set. 4. Plaintiff Moti Lal (since deceased) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,88,700/- (one lac eighty thousand and seven hundred) along with interest against the defendant respondent in the trial Court. The money was borrowed by the defendant on 23.4.1985 and promissory note was executed. In the written statement filed by the defendant one of the objections was that the plaintiff was involved in money lending business without having money lending licence. The learned trial Court framed as many as six issues which have been incorporated in the judgment of the trial Court. 5. The learned trial Court decided issues No. 1, 2 & 3 in favour of the plaintiff and observed that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and executed pro-note agreeing to pay interest. However, issue No. 5 which was in respect of doing business without money lending licence was decided against the plaintiff and it was observed by the trial Court that the plaintiff was money lender and was doing business without money lending licence therefore was not entitled for money and interest claimed by him. The suit of the plaintiff therefore was ordered to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.5.1996. Hence this appeal. 6. What was vehemently argued, however to assail the impugned judgment and decree was that the provisions contained in the Act were not properly appreciated. The plaintiff was not a money lender therefore it was not necessary for him to obtain money lending licence under the Act. Hence this appeal. 6. What was vehemently argued, however to assail the impugned judgment and decree was that the provisions contained in the Act were not properly appreciated. The plaintiff was not a money lender therefore it was not necessary for him to obtain money lending licence under the Act. The mere fact that the money was advanced on interest on more than one occasion would not necessarily import that he was engaged in the business of advancing loans, nor does a man become money lender merely because he may on one or several isolated occasions lend money to the persons. Reliance was placed on Ka Icilda Wallang v. U. Lokkendra Suiam, AIR 1987 SC 2047 and Gauri Shanker v. Megharam, 1974 RLW 106 . 7. Strenuous efforts were made on the other hand, supporting the judgment and decree impugned. 8. In order to thrash out the rival submissions, a look at the relevant statutory provisions, is necessary. 9. Section 2(2) of the Act defines Business of Money Lending'. It reads as under:- "(2) 'Business of money lending' means the business of advancing loans, whether or not in connection with or in addition to any other business.' 10. Section 11 of the Act was amended by the Amending Act No. 13 of 1976, it runs as under : "11. Dismissal of suit by money lender not holding licence-(1) Where a suit to which this Act applies is filed by a money lender and the Court in which it is filed is satisfied that at the time when the loan or any part thereof to which the suit relates was advanced, the money lender did not hold a valid licence, it shall dismiss the suit forthwith without going into merits of the claim and shall order the refund of the security, if any, without repayment of the loan. 2. xxxxxxx (a) xxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxx 11. In the case on hand the plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. Ram Gopal (PW 1) the son of the plaintiff in his statement admitted that Karan Singh, Somota, Dulhe Ram, Manohar Lal and Rajendra borrowed money from his father Moti Lal. When suggestion was made to him that Giriraj, Govind and Mohan Lal also borrowed money from his father, witness Ram Gopal did not deny this fact. Ram Gopal (PW 1) the son of the plaintiff in his statement admitted that Karan Singh, Somota, Dulhe Ram, Manohar Lal and Rajendra borrowed money from his father Moti Lal. When suggestion was made to him that Giriraj, Govind and Mohan Lal also borrowed money from his father, witness Ram Gopal did not deny this fact. PW 2 Buddhi also stated that plaintiff Moti Lal did money lending business even on the eve of his death, PW 3 Ram Singh stated that Moti did not run the shop but did only the money lending business. Learned trial Court on the basis of these statements observed that plaintiff Motilal was doing money lending business but was not having money lending licence. Thus issue No. 5 was decided against the plaintiff and suit was dismissed. 12. Ka Icilda v. U. Lokendra Suiam (supra) was the case where their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus: "Both the appellate Court and the High Court have found that the plaintiff was not a money lender within the meaning of Assam Money Lender's Act, 1934. The High Court observed that a few disconnected and isolated transactions would not make the plaintiff a person engaged regularly in money lending business. The approach of the High Court to the question was correct. We also notice that the defendants did not take the plea that the plaintiff was a money lender in the written statement nor did they adduce any evidence before the trial Court that the plaintiff was a money lender in view of this we find no merit in the appeal." 13. Gauri Shanker v. Meghararn (supra) was the case where this Court (Hon'ble Modi, J. as he then was) propounded that casual advancing of money to the parties does not amount to business of money lending. 14. As already discussed herein above that the plaintiff Moti Lal was not advancing the money to the borrowers casually but he was doing the business of money lending. Money was regularly advanced by him to the different borrowers and this fact was admitted by none other but the witnesses of the plaintiff. 14. As already discussed herein above that the plaintiff Moti Lal was not advancing the money to the borrowers casually but he was doing the business of money lending. Money was regularly advanced by him to the different borrowers and this fact was admitted by none other but the witnesses of the plaintiff. The Act came into force from 1.10.1965 and according to Section 5 of the Act the plaintiff Moti Lal after expiration of six months from the date on which the Act came into force, could not carry on or continue to carry on, the business of money lending without obtaining money lending licence. Learned trial Court after discussing the evidence adduced in the suit was satisfied that the plaintiff Moti Lal was a money lender and at the time i.e. on 23.4.1985 when the loan to the defendant was advanced, he did not hold a valid licence. I see no illegality in the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court. The discretion vested under Section 11 of the Act was rightly exercised by it. Learned trial Court while interpreting the facts and law had no option but to respect the wishes of the Legislature. Ratio of the case laws cited at the bar, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 15. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Costs easy.Appeal dismissed. *******