JUDGMENT 1. - These two Civil First Regular Appeals under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2000 of the learned District Judge, Kota in Civil Original Suit No. 95/98 whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been partly decreed for the principal sum and has been dismissed for the amount of interest claimed therein. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that plaintiff Nawal Kishore Goyal filed a civil suit for the recovery of principal amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest amount of Rs.9,750/- against the defendants in the trial court with the averments that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are partners of the firm M/s. Ramesh Chand Suresh Chand, Nai Dhanmandi, Kota who took a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.4.1997 for the business of the firm on interest g18% p.a. for a period of two months and the 'hundi' was executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff. In his written statement defendant No. 2 has admitted that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are partners of defendant No. 3 firm. He has, however, denied that he took any loan from Nawal Kishore Goyal and pleaded that the plaintiff was doing the business of money lending. As he has no money lending license, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 remained exparte. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as four issues. Issue No. 1 pertained to the advance of loan on interest p18% p.a. and execution of 'hundl. Issue No. 2 pertained to non-maintainability of the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was doing the business of money lending and was not having any license to do so. Issue No. 3 pertained to jurisdiction of the court and issue No. 4 pertained to relief. 4. The plaintiff examined himself, Roopchand s/o Ram Pratap, Roopchand s/o Baluram and Sunil Agrawal. Defendant No. 2 examined himself. Issue No. 3 pertained to jurisdiction of the court and issue No. 4 pertained to relief. 4. The plaintiff examined himself, Roopchand s/o Ram Pratap, Roopchand s/o Baluram and Sunil Agrawal. Defendant No. 2 examined himself. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the evidence adduced in the suit, the learned trial court partly decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- was advanced as loan to the defendants but no interest was agreed to be paid there-on. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were decided against the defendant No. 2 and accordingly partly decreed the suit for the principal amount, but the claim for interest was disallowed. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, one appeal being S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 2/01 has been preferred by Suresh Chand, the contesting defendant and another appeal being S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 75/01 has been preferred by plaintiff Nawal Kishore Goyal. 6. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 7. Assailing the findings of the trial court, Mr. Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the defendant- appellant has argued that the trial court has committed gross error in partly deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff who has miserably failed to prove that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was advanced as loan to the defendant on 25.4.1997 on the basis of a 'hundi'. In this regard he has submitted that the plaintiff himself has admitted in his deposition that he neither knew the defendant nor gave the loan amount to the defendant himself. According to him, the decision of the learned trial court on issue No. 2 is also un-sustainable in as much as it is abundantly proved that the plaintiff is doing business of money lending and he has no license to do so. His suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1964 (in short the Act of 1963'). 8. Mr. His suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1964 (in short the Act of 1963'). 8. Mr. Sanjay Singhal, learned counsel appearing for respondent-plaintiff, while supporting the judgment of the learned trial court, has submitted that the trial court has rightly held that a sum of Rs.50,000/- is was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant on the basis of a 'hundi' Ex.1 for a period of two months through one Roopchand. He has, however, criticised the finding of the learned trial court with regard to rejection of his claim for interest. 9. According to him, this court has held that the 'hundi' is a negotiable instrument and the advance of sum on the basis of such a document is not a loan within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Act of 1963 and, therefore, a suit on the basis of such a document is maintainable by the plaintiff even without a valid license. Learned counsel for the defendant also could not rebut this contention. 10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the record. 11. So far as the decision of the trial court on issue No. 1 is concerned, the plaintiff has produced Ex.1 Ex.2 power of attorney, and has examined himself as PW1, Roopchand s/o Ram Pratap PW 2, Roopchand s/o Baluram PW3 and Sunil Agrawal PW4. He has supported his own case setup in the plaint. He has duly proved power of attorney Ex.2 executed by him in favour of Sunil Agrawal. Roopchand PW 2 has stated that on behalf of the plaintiff, he had advanced Rs.50,000/- on 25.4.1997 to the defendants on interest @1.50% p.m. for two months. The 'hundi' Ex.1 was executed by Suresh Chand defendant No. 2 who is the partner of defendant firm. His signatures on Ex.-1 are A to B which he put on the 'bun& in his presence. According to him, Suresh Chand had paid interest for two months. He has also stated that in the 'hundi' Ex.-1 instead of Nawal Kishore Goyal, Nawal Kishore Vyas was written by mistake. Sunil Agrawal PW-4 has duly supported his version in his deposition. He has stated that the signatures A to B on Ex-1 were put by Suresh Chand in his presence after taking the amount. He has also stated that in the 'hundi' Ex.-1 instead of Nawal Kishore Goyal, Nawal Kishore Vyas was written by mistake. Sunil Agrawal PW-4 has duly supported his version in his deposition. He has stated that the signatures A to B on Ex-1 were put by Suresh Chand in his presence after taking the amount. Though Suresh Chand Gupta DW-1 has stated that no amount was taken by him from Nawal Kishore and he had not executed any 'huncli' in his favour. He has stated that he had no dealing with Nawal Kishore Goyal, yet he has not denied his signatures on 'hundi' Ex.-1 in his examination-in-chief nor has denied that Rs. 50,000/- were taken by him from Newel Kishore. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he had executed a 'hundi' Ex-1 and A to B are his signatures on it. He has set-up a case that he had taken this amount from Nawal Kishore Vyas and not from Nawal Kishore Goyal, but he has not examined Nawal Kishore Vyas to prove that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was taken as loan by him from him. He has not explained as to how 'hundi' Ex.-1 was with Nawal Kishore Goyal if he had executed the same in favour of Nawal Kishore Vyas. If it had been executed in favour of Nawal Kishore Vyas, 1 it should have been with him and not with plaintiff Nawal Kishore Goyal. He has in his cross examination plainly admitted that he does not know Nawal Kishore Vyas. He had taken the loan amount from him through his agent (dalal), but, he could not disclose the name of his agent. 12. Thus, on a careful scanning of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and keeping in view the preponderance of probabilities, the version of defendant Suresh Chand Gupta does not inspire any confidence. He appears to have stated so in order to avoid liability for payment of the aforesaid amount. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in the case abundantly proves his case and the learned trial court has rightly held that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was advanced to Suresh Chand on 25.4.1997 for a period of two months. 13. He appears to have stated so in order to avoid liability for payment of the aforesaid amount. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff in the case abundantly proves his case and the learned trial court has rightly held that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was advanced to Suresh Chand on 25.4.1997 for a period of two months. 13. So far as the question of interest is concerned, the finding of the trial court is that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the interest was agreed to be paid @18% p.a. But, strongly criticising the said finding, learned counsel for the plaintiff has made two fold submissions, first that it is clearly mentioned in the 'hundi' Ex.-1 that the amount of loan would be repayable alongwith interest and Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that even where no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount due thereon shall, notwithstanding any agreement relating to interest between any parties to the instrument be calculated @18% p.a. from the date on which the same ought to have been paid by the party charged until tendered or realisation of the amount due thereon or until such date after the institution of the suit to recover such amount as the court directs. According to him interest is payable on 'hundi' as per this statutory provision even if it is assumed that there was no agreement between the parties to pay interest on the amount mentioned in the 'hundi'. Secondly, that the definition of 'loan' given in Section 2(9) of the Act of 1963 excludes an advance on the basis of a negotiable instrument and to a trader as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act of 1963 from the ambit of loan. Learned counsel for the defendant also could not rebut these contentions. 14. Indeed, 'hundi' Ex.-1 provides that the amount mentioned therein would be repayable alongwith interest at the bank rates. Indisputably 'hundi' is a negotiable instrument and it has also been held so in the case of "Nizamuddin v. Jugal Kishore", AIR 1996 Raj. 207 . Besides this, Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is as under: "80. Interest when no rate specified. Indisputably 'hundi' is a negotiable instrument and it has also been held so in the case of "Nizamuddin v. Jugal Kishore", AIR 1996 Raj. 207 . Besides this, Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is as under: "80. Interest when no rate specified. When no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount due thereon shall, notwithstanding any agreement relating to interest between any parties to the instrument, be calculated at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum, from the date at which the same ought to have been paid by the party charged, until tender or realisation of the amount due thereon, or until such date after the institution of a suit to recover such amount as the court as directs." 15. It is apparent from a perusal of the aforesaid Section that the interest is payable on 'hundi' even if rate of interest is not mentioned in it. This section also governs a case where payment of interest is mentioned, but no rate is stipulated. Any agreement between the parties contemporaneous with or subsequent to the date of the negotiable instrument with regard to interest will not have any effect and such agreement will not be enforceable as has been held in K. Rajgopal v. M. Thiagarajan, (1999) 95 Company Cases 286 . 16. In view of the fore-going discussion, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal sum of Rs.50,000/- at the rate of 18% p.a. from 26.6.1997 till the decision of the suit by the trial court i.e. 16.11.2000. However, in view of the reduced bank rates and all other facts and circumstances of the case, it appears just, appropriate and reasonable to grant pendente lite and future interest @ 9% p.a. till realisation on the principal amount. 17. Thus, the issue No. 1 so far it relates to the claim of interest of Rs.9,750/- also deserves to be and is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. So far as issue pertaining to maintainability of the suit by plaintiff in the absence of a valid money lending license is concerned, it would be apposite to extract here the definition of loan given in Section 2(9) of the Act of 1963 which is as under: 2. Definitions. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or contest, (1) to (8)........ Definitions. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or contest, (1) to (8)........ (9) 'Loan' means an advance at interest, whether of money or in kind, but does not include (a) to (h)......... (i)an advance made on the basis of a negotiable instrument as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Central Act XXVI of 1881) other than promissory note." (i)except for the purposes of Sections 27 and 29. (i)a loan to a trader, or (ii)a loan to a money-lender who holds a valid license, 18. It is not disputed that the plaintiff has not filed any valid money lending license, but it is also a patent fact that the amount advanced by him is an advance of loan on the basis of a negotiable instrument i.e. 'hundi', which is excluded from the definition of loan and the suit of the plaintiff cannot be dismissed for want of a valid money lending license because Section 11 of the Act of 1963 clearly provides that 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 license, it shall dismiss the suit forthwith without going into the merits of the claim. 'A suit to which this Act applies' has been defined in Section 2(15) of the Act of 1963 as under: "'suit to which this Act applies' means any suit or proceeding (a) for the recovery of a loan made after the date on which this Act comes into force, or (b) for the enforcement of any security taken or any agreement made after the date on which this Act comes into force in respect of any loan made either before or after the said date, or (c) for the redemption of any security given after the date on which this Act comes into force in respect of any loan made either before or after the said date." 19. Since the amount advanced by the plaintiff in the instant case, does not fall within the definition of loan as defined in Section 2(9) of the Act of 1963, the Act cannot be said to apply to the present suit and, therefore, the suit cannot be said to be liable to be dismissed for want of a valid license being held by the plaintiff.In view of the fore-going discussion, the entire issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and issue No. 2 is decided against the defendants, but for the reasons given here-in-above, the findings of the trial court on other issues are affirmed. 20. Consequently, the S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 2/01 filed by defendant Suresh Chand is dismissed as having no merit and substance. But the appeal filed by the plaintiff Nawal Kishore Goyal is allowed and the suit of tie plaintiff for a sum of Rs.9,750/- on account of interest is also decreed in addition to the decree of principal sum of Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiff shall also I e entitled to interest on the principal sum of Rs.50,000/- w.e.f. the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the amount @ 9% p.a.. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.Plaintiff's Appeal Allowed- Defendant's Appeal Dismissed. *******