JUDGMENT : Ashok S.Kinagi, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2013 passed in R.A.No.10/2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Challakere, and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.31/2012 dated 28.01.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the recovery of money. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant are well known to each other. The defendant approached the plaintiff with a request to advance a hand loan of Rs.1.00 lakh for family necessity. The plaintiff, considering the need of the defendant, agreed to advance a hand loan of Rs.1.00 lakh on 06.02.2009 in the presence of the witnesses. The defendant also executed a demand promissory note. It was agreed to pay the interest @ 2% per month. The plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the loan amount with interest. Despite the request, the defendant did not repay the loan amount. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 17.01.2012 to the defendant, calling him to repay the loan amount with interest. The defendant did not reply to the legal notice. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery of money. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is contended that the plaintiff colluding with one H. Puttanna S/o. Yallappa, who is the uncle of the plaintiff, has filed a false suit against several persons. The plaintiff is unknown to him, and he has never engaged in any monetary transaction with the plaintiff and not executed any promissory note. The plaintiff is a money lender, and the plaintiff does not possess any valid money lending license. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The plaintiff is unknown to him, and he has never engaged in any monetary transaction with the plaintiff and not executed any promissory note. The plaintiff is a money lender, and the plaintiff does not possess any valid money lending license. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issues: ISSUES 1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendant borrowed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Plaintiff for his land development on 06.02.2009 and executed a promissory note dated 06.02.2009 in favour of Plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% per month? 2) Whether the Defendant proves that the Plaintiff has obtained signature of Defendant on blank promissory note being security for the treatment amount which was due by the Defendant to the plaintiff? 3) Whether the Defendant further proves that the Plaintiff has concocted promissory note after obtaining the signature of the Defendant on blank promissory note? 4) Whether the Defendant proves that suit is barred by law of limitation? 5) Whether the Plaintiff is entitle for the relief as sought for? 6) What Order or Decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUE 1) Whether the Defendant proves that the plaintiff is doing money lending business without any money lending license, hence the suit is not maintainable? 6. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3, and marked 4 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.4. On the other hand, the defendant was examined as DW-1, and marked 13 documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.13. 7. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1, and additional issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue Nos. 2 to 5 in the negative, and issue No.6 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.01.2013. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.31/2012 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.10/2013 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Challakere. 8. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: POINTS 1) Whether the lower Court is justified in dismissing the suit of plaintiff in O.S.No.31/2012 on 28/01/2013? 8. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: POINTS 1) Whether the lower Court is justified in dismissing the suit of plaintiff in O.S.No.31/2012 on 28/01/2013? 2) Whether interference of this Court in the judgment and decree passed by trial Court is needed? 3) What order or decree? 9. The first appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative, and point No.3 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.31/2012,vide judgment dated 24.07.2013. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 10. A notice was issued to the defendants. Despite service of the notice, the defendant remained unrepresented. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that provisions of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as KMLA for short) do not apply to the case on hand. The plaintiff does not fall within the definition of money lenders. The said aspect was not correctly decided by the Courts below, and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He further submits that when the plaintiff has proved lending of money to the defendant, and the defendant has executed a promissory note on 06.02.2009, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit, on the contrary, dismissed the suit, solely on the ground that the plaintiff does not posses the valid money lenders license. 13. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of M.N. Radhamma Vs. M.N. Venkatanarayanappa reported in ILR 1979 (2) 2138, V. Sathyanarayana V/s. Sandeep Enterprises reported in ILR 2004 (4) Kar 4505, and M Basavapunnaiah Vs. B. Jagan Mohan Rao in RFA No.862/2006 . On these grounds, he submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below are contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 15. B. Jagan Mohan Rao in RFA No.862/2006 . On these grounds, he submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below are contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 15. This appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether both the Courts below are right in law in dismissing the suit by applying the provisions of the Money Lenders Act, 1961?” 16. Reg. Substantial Question of Law : The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1. He deposed that the defendant is well known to the plaintiff, and he approached the plaintiff with a request to advance a hand loan of Rs.1.00 lakh for the family needs. The plaintiff, considering the need of the defendant, agreed to advance a hand loan of Rs.1.00 lakh. Accordingly, the plaintiff advanced a hand loan of Rs.1.00 lakh, and it was agreed that the defendant to pay interest @ 2% per month, and executed a promissory note on06.02.2009. 17. The plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the loan amount with agreed interest. Despite the oral request made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the loan amount. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 17.01.2012 calling upon the defendant to repay the loan amount. Despite service of notice, defendant did not repay the loan amount. 18. To prove the loan transaction between the defendant and the plaintiff, the plaintiff has produced the promissory note marked as Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 is the copy of the legal notice dated 17.01.2012 which discloses that the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to repay the loan amount with interest. Ex.P.3 is the postal receipt, Ex.P.4 is the postal acknowledgement. Further the plaintiff also examined two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3, who deposed that the plaintiff had advanced a hand loan of Rs.1.00 lakh to the defendant, and he had executed a promissory note on 06.02.2009, and PW-2 and PW-3 have affixed their signatures on Ex.P.1, and the signature of PW-2 is marked as Ex.P.1(e), and the signature of PW-3 is marked as Ex.P.1(d). 19. 19. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW-1, and he denied the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant, and he deposed that the plaintiff is a money lender, and he has filed a suit against the others in O.S.No.69/2012 and O.S.No.175/2011 Hence, the plaintiff without possessing a valid money lending license, is advancing the loan to the needy persons. To prove the defence of the defendant, the defendant has produced the documents. Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 are copies of the legal notice, Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 are the courier receipts, Ex.D.5 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.69/2012, Ex.D.6 is the certified copy of Ex.P.1 in O.S.No.69/2012, Ex.D.7 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.175/2011, Ex.D.8 is the certified copy of the Ex.P.1 in O.S.No.175/2011, Ex.D.9 is the deposition of PW-3 in O.S.No.175/2011, Ex.D.10 and Ex.D.11 are the certified copies of the office copies of the reply notices, and Ex.D.12 and Ex.D.13 are the promissory notes. 20. It is the defence of the defendant that the plaintiff, without obtaining a valid money lending license, is advancing the loan. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. From the perusal of the cross- examination of DW-1, DW-1, admitted the signature of the defendant on Ex.P.1. Though, the defendant has contended that the plaintiff obtained a signature on the blank promissory note, to prove that the plaintiff had obtained a signature on the blank demand promissory note, the defendant has not led any evidence. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, has recorded its finding that, the plaintiff had proved that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh from the plaintiff for his family necessity on 06.02.2009 and executed the promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest @2% per month. The trial Court has dismissed the suit solely on the ground that the plaintiff is a money lender, and did not possess a valid money lending license as required under the provisions of the KMLA. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.31/2012 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.10/2013. The first appellate Court, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The defendant did not challenge the findings recorded on issue No.1 i.e., regarding the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. 21. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.31/2012 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.10/2013. The first appellate Court, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The defendant did not challenge the findings recorded on issue No.1 i.e., regarding the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. 21. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine the definition of the money lender. Section 2(10)of the KMLA reads as follows: “2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (10) “money-lender” means,- (i) an individual; or (ii) an undivided Hindu family; or (iii) a company; or (iv) an unincorporated body of individuals; who or which,- (a) carries on the business of money-lending in the State; or (b) has his or its principal place of such business in the State, but shall not include a bank [or any other r financial institution which the State Government may, by notification specify in this behalf” 22. From the definition, it is clear that for a person to be a money lender, he or she must carry on business in a money lending in the State. To refer an activity as business in money lending, there must be the course of dealings carried on with a profit motive. Thus, it must be established that the person has carried on the activity of money lending as a business with a profit motive. Explaining the words carried out in the activity of money lending, as found in 2(10) of the KMLA, makes it clear that, mere stray instances of lending money cannot be taken as proof without the establishment of the fact of carrying a business of money lending. In other words, money lending must be carried on, as a profession. 23. Admittedly, in the instant case, though the defendant produced the documents to show that the plaintiff advanced a loan to the defendant in O.S.No.69/2012 and O.S.No.175/2011, the said documents are marked as a certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.69/2012 and O.S.175/11 at Ex.D.5 & 7 and Ex.P.1 is the promissory note executed by the defendant to the plaintiff herein, Ex.D.8 is the certified copy of Ex.P.1 in O.S.No.175/2011 i.e., the demand promissory note executed by the borrower in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court, considering Ex.D.5 to Ex.D.8, held that the plaintiff is a money lender, and lending a money without obtaining a valid money lending license, 2 to 3 stray instances of lending money by the plaintiff will not make him as a money lender. In other words, activities of lending money must be carried on, as a business. The aforementioned view is supported by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.N. Radhamma Vs. M.N. Venkatanarayanappa reported in ILR 1979(2) 2138 . Further, the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the definition of money lender in the case of V. Sathyanarayana V/s. Sandeep Enterprises reported in ILR 2004(4) KAR 4505 in Crl.R.P.5/2002 disposed of, on 16.09.2004 , has held as under: “17. Even otherwise, if assumed that the cheques were issued by the petitioner/accused in the course of money lending-business, that itself does not attract the provisions contained in Karnataka Money Lenders Act. This is because, under said Act, money lender means ‘a person, who carried on the business of money lending’ and to say that one is a money lender, he or she must carry on business in money lending in the State and, to record an activity as business, there must be a course of dealings carried with a profit motive. In other words, money lending must be carried on as profession. If the money lending was not with profit or motive or, not carried on as a profession, he or she does not become a money lender under the Karnataka Money Lenders Act/ So a stray instance of lending money does not show carrying on the business of money lending as profession or with profit motive.” 24. The division bench of this Court also considered the judgment of M.N. Radhamma referred supra. Further this Court in the case of S. Basavapunaiah Vs. B. Jagan Mohan Rao in RFA NO.862/2006 disposed of on 04.04.2014, considering the judgment of M.N. Radhamma (supra) has held that the defendant has not been able to prove that the plaintiff is a money lender within purview the of Section 2(10) of the KMLA. 25. Admittedly, the defendant has produced Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.8, which discloses that there are two instances, wherein, the plaintiff has lent a money to the defendant in these suits. 25. Admittedly, the defendant has produced Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.8, which discloses that there are two instances, wherein, the plaintiff has lent a money to the defendant in these suits. However, the coordinate bench, in the case of M.N. Radhamma (supra) has held that, two or three stray instances of lending money by the petitioner, will not make him a money lender. 26. Considering the ratio laid down by the Division Bench, the plaintiff does not fall within the definition of money lender as defined under Section 2(10) of the KMLA. Both the Courts below, without considering the said aspect, have proceeded to pass the impugned judgments. The impugned judgments passed by the Courts below, are contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of M.N. Radhamma (supra), and M. Basavapunaiah referred (supra). 27. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are arbitrary, erroneous, and perverse, and the same are liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the negative. 28. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Regular Second appeal is allowed. The judgment passed in R.A.No.10/2013 dated 24.07.2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Challakere and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.31/2012 dated 28.01.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Molakalmuru are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for. No order as to the costs. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.A.’s if any do not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed off.