ORDER
K. A. Swami, J.
1. This appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29-11-1986 passed by the learned XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 2379/1983. Respondents-1 to 3 are defendants 1 to 3 in the aforesaid suit. In this judgment the appellant will be referred to as the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 3 as defendants 1 to 3.
1.1. The aforesaid suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 32,234/- from defendants 1 and 2 on the basis of the pronote dated 10-9-1980 executed by defendants 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of defendant-3 and also on the basis of Ex.P.3 executed by defendant-3 in favour of the plaintiff for a valid consideration, assigning the debt due under the pronote dated 10-9-1980 F-x.P.3.
1.2. The case of the plaintiff was that defendants-1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 10-9-1980 from defendant-3 executing a pronote for the said sum and further agreeing to pay interest at 1.75 per cent per month; that defendant-3 assigning the pronote debt on 30-6-1983 in favour of the plaintiff on receiving the amount due under the pronote; that the plaintiff issued notice dated 2-7-1983 as per Exhibit P.1 calling upon defendants-1 and 2 to pay the debt due under the pronote and further informed them
that the pronote in question was assigned to him for consideration. Defendants-1 and 2 sent a reply dated 27-7-1983 denying the execution of the pronote. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit on 8-8-1983 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 32,234, – with costs.
2. Defendants-1 and 2 resisted the suit. They, inter alia, contended that they had no transaction with defendant-3, that their father Venkategowda died in the year 1979 and in the year 1980 they were told by K. Siddalingaiah, who died on 14-12-1980; that their father was due to him in a sum of Rs. 20,000/ -; that believing the words of K. Siddalingaiah they affixed their signatures to the document on 9-2-1980. They also further alleged that on the suggestion of late K. Siddalingaiah the name of S. Ankaiah (defendant-3) was also inserted in the lenders column and no consideration was passed under the document; that the pronote in question was not legally enforceable; that it was materially altered; that the suit was not in time; that the assignment of the alleged debt by defendant-3 in favour of the plaintiff was not true; that it was an attempt to show that the assignment was for consideration; that the plaintiff was put to strict proof of the same; that the interest claimed was usurious; that the plaintiff and Ankaiah were money lenders and that they did not possess valid money lending licence as per law. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. Defendant-3 did not file any written statement. He was examined as PW2.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court raised the following issues for trial :
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that on 10-9-1980 defendants-1 and 2 jointly borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the third defendant by executing on demand pronote?
2. Does he further prove that defendant-3 has assigned the pronote and the consideration receipt in favour of the plaintiff on 30-6-1983 for full consideration, and that the said fact was intimated to both defendants-1 and 2?
3. Whether the defendants prove that they executed the pronote in favour of the third defendant under the circumstances mentioned in para 2 of their written statement without consideration?
4. Do they further prove that there have been material alterations to bring the suit within the period of limitation ?
5. Do they further prove that the suit is barred by limitation?
6. Is plaintiff entitled to recover Rs. 32,234/- from the defendants or to what amount ?
7. What order? What decree? The additional issue reads as follows :
8. Whether the plaintiff is doing money lending business without valid licence?
5. On behalf of the plaintiff, he gave evidence as PW1 and also examined Ankaiah the assignor as PW2 and Rangaiah the scribe of Exhibit P-5 as PW3 and produced eight documents which were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-8.
6. On behalf of defendants-1 and 2, defendant-2 was examined as DW1 and no document was produced by them.
7. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, answered issues Nos. 1, 2 and the additional issue No. 8 in the affirmative and issues Nos. 3 to 6 in the negative. Consequently, it dismissed the suit and directed the parties to bear their own costs. Thus, the trial Court dismissed the suit only on the ground that on the date of the transaction Ankaiah, the original lender and the assignor of the pronote and the plaintiff as the assignee of the pronote did not hold money lenders licence.
8. In this appeal, at the stage of admission, respondents were notified and records were called for. Accordingly, after the receipt of the records, the appeal came up for admission on 21st June, 1991. On that day, the appellant filed an application praying for permission to produce additional evidence, namely, certified copies of the money lending
licences for the years 1979 to 1983 pertaining to the appellant, zerox copy of the certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders, Bangalore City, Bangalore; certified copies of the money lending licences for the years 1979 and 1982 pertaining to defendant-3 and a certified copy of the certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders, Bangalore City, Bangalore, to defendant-3. The Court passed an order on 21-6-1991 to the following effect :
“Admit.
Respondents have already been notified. But they have remained absent and unrepresented. The application filed by the appellant for permission to adduce additional evidence shall have to be considered while hearing the appeal. As the appeal lies in a very narrow compass, we consider it necessary to hear it expeditiously. Accordingly, post the appeal for hearing on 19th July, 1991.”
Thereafter, the respondents were again notified. Accordingly, respondent-2 (defendant-2) has put in appearance through Sri C. N. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate, and respondent-3 (defendant-3) has put in appearance through Sri B. N. Dayananda, Advocate.
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. On the merits of the appeal as well as the application filed by the appellant for production of additional evidence. Tn the light of the contentions urged on both sides, the following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether the application filed by the appellant for production of additional evidence is required to be allowed and the documents stated therein can be permitted to be produced ?
2. Whether the plaintiff has proved execution of the pronote dated 10-9-1980 by defendants-1 and 2 in favour of defendant-3 fora sum of Rs. 20,000/- agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 1.75 per cent per month ?
3. Whether the plaintiff has proved that defendant-3 validly assigned the debt due
under the pronote dated 10-9-1980 on consideration, to the plaintiff?
4. Whether the plaintiff has proved that on the date of the pronote dated 10-9-1980 and on 8-8-1983 the date on which the suit was filed, he and defendant-3 held money lenders licence ?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 1.75 per cent per month claimed by him from 10-9-1980 till the date of the suit and from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and from the date of the decree till realisation ?
POINTS 1 & 4
10. These two points are required to be considered together because the trial court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove that on the date of the transaction he and the third defendant held the money lenders licence. The additional evidence sought to be adduced is to prove that on the date of transaction the third defendant and the plaintiff held the money lenders licence. The plaintiff and the third defendant admittedly were the money lenders. The suit transaction took place on 10-9-1980. The third defendant advanced a sum of Rs.20,000/- to defendants-1 and 2 under a pronote marked as Ex.P-3. Thereafter he assigned it to the plaintiff on 30-6-1983. The suit was filed on 8-8-1983.
11. In the light of the provisions contained in S. 11 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the plaintiff is required to prove that on the date of the transaction the third defendant and the plaintiff held the money lenders licence and on the date of the suit the plaintiff held the money lenders licence. As far as holding of money lenders licence on the date of the suit is concerned the trial court has held in favour of the plaintiff. It has held that the plaintiff as well as the third defendant held the money lenders licence on the date of the suit. That it is so is also not disputed before us. This fact is also established by Ex.P-28, the money lenders licence.
11.1. The plaintiff has also produced the money lenders licence held by him and also by
the 3rd defendant for the year 1980. Ex.P-6 is the money lenders licence issued in favour of the third defendant dated 19th December, 1980 and it was valid till the end of December, 1980. Ex.P-7 is also a money lenders licence issued in the name of the plaintiff dated 19th December, 1980 and it was valid up to the end of December, 1980. The contention of the plaintiff is that he did not produce the money lenders licence for the year 1979 or other evidence to show that Exs.P-6 and P-7 were good for the entire calendar year 1980 because Exs.P-6 and P-7 were the renewed licences renewing the licences held for the year 1979; that this fact was evident on the face of those licences as in the case of belated application for renewal only a fee of Rs. 20/- per application was required to be paid and this fact was evident from Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7 and further they contained the numbers indicating that the same were renewed licences.
12. An application for money lending licence is required to be made by every money lender in the prescribed form as per S. 6 of the Act containing the particulars stated in S. 6 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of S. 6 of the Act further provides that the application shall be accompanied by licence fee at the following rate as it stood prior to amendment by Karnataka Act 41/1985:
“If the place at which the business of money lending is to be carried on is not more than one; Rs. 10/-”
In this case, we are concerned with the year 1980. Therefore, the amendment effected by Karnataka Act 41/1985 to Ss. 6 and 7 of the Act are not relevant for our purpose. Proviso to sub-sec. (4) of S. 6 of the Act further provides that where an application is made after the expiry of the period prescribed by the rules, in respect of such application, it shall be accompanied by a licence fee at double the rate specified in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-sec. (4) of S. 6 of the Act. Rule5 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Rules, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) framed under the Act provides as follows :
5. Application for licences:– (1) A money-lender desiring to carry on the business
of money lending in any area shall make an application in Form-2 to the Assistant Registrar concerned. The application shall be delivered at the office of the Assistant Registrar during office hours either personally by the applicant or through an agent duly authorised in writing in this behalf or sent by registered post addressed to the Assistant Registrar.
2. An application for grant of a licence for the first time may be made on any date and an application for renewal of licence may be made on any date within two months prior to the expiry of the licence.”
Thus Rule 5(2) provides for making an application for licence for the first time as well as for renewal of licence. In the case of an application for renewal of licence, it shall have to be made on any date within two months prior to the expiry of the licence. The proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act providing for payment of licence fee at double the rate is referable to the application for renewal made beyond the period prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Section 5 of the Rules.
13. The learned single Judge of this Court in Huchaiah v. State of Karnataka (ILR 1985 (1) Kant 1048 : (AIR 1985 NOC 148) while considering Sections 6(4) and 7(1) of the Act in relation to an application filed for renewal of money lenders licence has held as follows :
2.1. The contention of the petitioner is that under the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), an application for renewal can be made even after the expiry of the period prescribed under the Rules and such an application is maintainable provided it is accompanied by a licence fee at double the rate specified in the said sub-section.”
2.2. It is submitted that accordingly, the petitioner has made an application accompanied by a licence fee at double the rate as provided under S. 6 of the Act. It is further submitted that S. 7 which provides for grant of licence and entry in the register applies not
only to an application filed for grant of Hence but also to an application filed for renewal as provided in the proviso to sub-section (4) of S. 6 of the Act. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the authority is not justified in rejecting the application without holding an enquiry as required by S. 7 of the Act. Section 7(1) of the Act reads as follows:–
“On receipt of an application under S. 6 and after making a summary inquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the Assistant Registrar shall forward the application, together with his report, to the Registrar. The Registrar may after making such further inquiry, if any, as he deems fit, grant the applicant a licence in such form and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and direct the Assistant Registrar to enter the name of such applicant in the register maintained by him under Section 4.
If the application is in respect of more than one place of business in the area under the jurisdication of the Registrar, a separate licence in respect of each such place shall be granted in the name of the applicant and the person responsible for the management of the business at such place.”
3. Thus the aforesaid provision makes it clear that an application filed under Section 6 of the Act is required to be enquired into and disposed of in accordance with the above provision. That being so, an application filed under sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act, even though it is beyond the time, if it is accompanied by a licence fee at double the rate as specified is an application for the purpose of S. 7 of the Act, and it has to be enquired into and disposed of in accordance with the provisions contained in S. 7 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the application has been rejected without holding an enquiry.”
Therefore, in the light of the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Sec. 6 of the Act and also sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules, we are of the view that when once the application for renewal is made by paying the licence fee at double the rate as per the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act even
though such application is made beyond the period prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, the renewal shall be deemed to take place from the beginning of the calendar year as otherwise there is no purpose in seeking renewal. A money lender can very well make a fresh application and seek fresh licence. The whole object of providing for payment of licencee at double the rate specified for an application made beyond the time prescribed for renewal of money lenders licence is to enable the money lender who has failed to make an application within the period prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules, to have the money lenders licence renewed for the entire calendar year. The application made for renewal of licence is not an application for grant of fresh licence. It is an application filed by the money lender who held the money lenders licence in the preceding year and wants to have the same licence renewed for the current year. The fact that renewal application has not been filed within the period prescribed by sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules will not make that application invalid and it will not disable the applicant to -have the money lenders licence renewed if he pays licence fee at double the rate. Therefore, we are in agreement with the decision in Huchaiah’s case (AIR 1985 NOC 148) (Kant) holding that such an application must be considered to be a valid application, and it shall have to be considered in accordance with law. We also hold that renewal takes effect from the commencement of the current year for which the renewal is sought, irrespective of the period when it is sought. Money lenders licences produced at Exs. P. 6 and P. 7 read in the light of the view we have taken would go to prove that Exs. P.6 and P.7 are not the fresh money lenders licences but the same are the money lenders licences renewed for the year 1980. It also follows that the same are valid for the entire calendar year 1980. This would be sufficient for the purpose of the case.
13.1. However, the appellant has also filed an application for additional evidence which if admitted would remove the obscurity if any in the evidence on record and would go
to prove that the plaintiff and the third defendant held the money lenders licence for the year 1979 and had also obtained renewal of the money lenders licence continuously from 1979 to 1984 without any break. Hence we are of the view that the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the plaintiff is necessary for the purpose of satisfactory pronouncement of the Judgment.
14. The Supreme Court in Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy, has held as follows (para 16):
“Under R. 27(1), the appellate court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence “to enable it to pronounce judgment”, but also for “any other substantial cause”. There may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of record as it is, and so it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under R. 27(1)(b) of the Code.”
Therefore, we are of the view that additional evidence sought to be adduced by the plaintiff
deserves to be permitted.
15. We shall now take up for consideration the additional evidence that is sought to be adduced by the plaintiff.
16. As already pointed out, the trial Court dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove that he and Ankaiah held the money lenders licence on 10-9-1980 the date on which the money was lent and the pronote was executed. All other issues have been held in favour of the plaintiff. In the application filed for permission to produce additional evidence, it has been stated that the money lenders licences of the plaintiff and defendant-3 produced as Exhibits P.6 and P.7 respectively contained the number as MLA/MLLR/2077/79/1980 and MLA/MLLR/2716/79 and also further
contained the information that the plaintiff had paid Rs. 20/- in respect of each of the licences. The plaintiff’s case was that it was sufficient to indicate that Exhibits P-6 P-7 were the renewed licences. Therefore, there was a continuity of the licences from the beginning of the year 1980 and further it was stated in the affidavit that in spite of the best efforts made, it was not possible to secure the copies from the Registrar of Money Lenders, Bangalore City District, Bangalore, for the year 1979 pertaining to the plaintiff and defendant-3 and that the documents produced along with the application are necessary to enable the Court to do justice to the parties. Along with the application, nine documents are produced, which are as follows :
(1) Certified copy of the money lenders’ licence dated 28 March, 19.79 bearing No. MLA : MLLR :2077/78 issued in favour of the plaintiff in Form-3 valid up to 31st December, 1979;
(2) Certified copy of the money lender
licence dated 19th December 1980 bearing No. MLA/MLLR 2077/79/1980 issued in favour of the plaintiff in Form-3 valid up to 31st December 1980.
(3) Certified copy of the money lenders’ licence dated 24th April 1981 bearing No. MLA/MLLR/2077/1981 issued in favour of the plaintiff in Form-3 valid upto 31st December 1981.
(4) Certified copy of the money lenders’ licence dated 21st June 1982 bearing No.MLA/MLLR/2077/1982 issued in favour of the plaintiff in Form-3 valid up to 31st December 1982.
(5) Certified copy of the money lenders’ licence dated 21st February 1983 bearing No.MLA/MLLR 2077/1983 issued in favour of the plaintiff in Form-3 valid up to 31st December 1983.
(6) Certificate bearing No. ARML:CER.-1.87-88- dated 8-5-1987 issued to the plaintiff by the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders, Bangalore City.
(7) Money lenders licene dated 28th March 1979 bearing No. MLA/MLLR/2716/79 issued in favour of defendant-3 in Form-3 valid up to 31st December 1979.
(8) Money Lenders’ Licence dated 21st June 1982 bearing No. MLA/MLLR/2716-/1982 issued in favour of defendant-3 in Form-3 valid up to 31st December 1982.
(9) Certificate bearing No. ARML : CER/2/87/88 dated 8-5-1987 issued to defendant-3 by the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders. Bangalore City.
Out of these documents, the document at Sl. No. 1 is a certified copy of the Money Lenders Licence renewed for the year 1979. It is necessary to show that the plaintiff held the money lenders licence for the year 1979 and it was this licence which was renewed for the year 1980. Hence it is relevant. Therefore it is necessary to allow this document to be produced. The document at Sl. No. 2, as already pointed out, has been produced in the suit and marked as Exhibit P-7. Therefore, it need not be considered. The document at Sl. No. 3 relates to the year 1981. This is not required for the purpose of the case because under the provisions of the Act, the plaintiff, if happens to be a money lender, is required to prove that on the date of the transaction and on the date of the suit, he held valid money lenders licence. In the instant case, the money was lent on 10-9-1980 and the suit was filed on 8-8-1983. Therefore, the document at Sl. No. 3 is not necessary for the purpose of the case. Similarly, the document at Sl. No. 4 which is a money lenders licence issued in favour of the plaintiff for the year 1982 is also not necessary. The document at Sl. No. 5 is a money lenders licence issued in favour of the plaintiff for the year 1983. This document is also not necessary because it has already been produced in the case and marked as Exhibit P-8. The document at Sl. No. 6 is a certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders, Bangalore City certifying that as per the entries in the register of money lenders maintained in his office, the plaintiff held the money lenders licence bearing No. 2077 since 1979 and it was renewed since 1979 to 1984 continuously without break. This document goes to show that the plaintiff held the money lenders licence both on the date of the
transaction and also on the date of filing of the suit and it thus removes the doubt if any with regard to those two aspects. Therefore, this document is necessary for the purpose of proper adjudication of the case. The document at Sl. No. 7 is a money lenders licence issued in favour of the 3rd defendant for the year 1979. It is necessary to show that in the year 1979 the 3rd defendant held the money lenders licence. The document at Sl. No. 8 is also a money lenders licence issued in favour of the 3rd defendant for the year 1982. As already pointed out, it is not necessary for the purpose of this case. The document at Sl. No. 9 is a certificate similar to the one described at Sl. No. 6 issued to the 3rd defendant certifying that as per the entries in the register of money lenders maintained in the office of the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders, Bangalore the 3rd defendant held the money lenders licence bearing No. 2716 since 1979 and it was renewed since 1979 to 3984 continuously without break. This document also goes to show that the 3rd defendant had the money lenders licence both on the date of the transaction and also on the date of filing of the suit. Thus, the documents mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are necessary for the purpose of proper adjudication of the case as the suit has been dismissed only on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove that on the date of the transaction he and the 3rd defendant held the money lenders licence.
17. It is contended by C. N. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd defendant that the plaintiff should not be allowed to fill in the lacuna at the appellate stage; that there is no justification for the failure of the plaintiff to produce these documents earlier; that the plaintiff was not vigilant in not producing the documents and that the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders had no authority to issue the certificates described at Sl. Nos. 6 and 9. Therefore, these certificates have no value and should not be allowed to be produced as additional evidence. It is further contended that the documents produced at Sl. Nos. 1, 5 and 7 are the certified copies and are not the originals; therefore, they are not admissible in evidence; that even if this Court were to allow the
aforesaid documents, the 2nd defendant should be permitted to produce additional evidence, and for that purpose, the case be remitted to the trial Court or a finding be called for. The law as to the production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is well settled. The additional evidence can be allowed to be produced if the same is relevant and necessary and, in spite of the sincere efforts made by the party, the same could not be secured and produced before the trial Court, or that at any rate he was prevented from producing the same, or that the documents are required by the Court to remove obscurity in the evidence and pronounce the judgment in a more satisfactory manner, to do justice in the case. In the instant case, the appellant has stated that Exhibits P-7 and P-8 contain the information to the effect that they are the renewed licences and they were issued on the application filed with late fee as required by Section 6 of the Act and as such they indicated that they are the renewed licences. Therefore, the party was advised that they would be sufficient. It is also further stated that in spite of the best efforts made by the appellant, he could not secure the documents which are now proposed to be produced as additional evidence. It is true that Exhibits P-6 and P-7 do contain the information to the effect that they have the renewed licence because they bear the No. MLA/ MLLR/2077/1982 and No. MLA/MLLR/ 2716/1982 and also contain the information that the fee paid was Rs. 20/-. We are of the, view that it would have been more satisfactory and no obscurity would have remained in the evidence, if only the plaintiff was able to produce the document, which are now produced, in the trial Court as the trial Court has found all other issues in favour of the plaintiff and has dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he and the 3rd defendant held the licence on the date of the transaction. We are of the view for the purpose of removing obscurity in evidence and to pronounce the judgment in a more satisfactory manner and to ensure that there is no miscarriage or failure of justice, the documents referred to at Sl. Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are necessary.
17.1. The contention of Sri Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd defendant that the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders has no authority to issue the documents at A1. Nos. 6 and 9 cannot at all be accepted. Under the Act it is the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders who issues the money lenders licence. It is he who has to maintain the money lenders register and it is he who had to take action against the money lenders for any violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed under the Act and the conditions of money lenders licence. That being so, the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders must be held to have been authorised under the Act to issue a certificate as to whether a particular money lender had the money lending licence for a particular year on the basis of the entries made in the Register of money lenders. If the contention of Sri Seshagiri Rao is accepted, it will lead to disastrous consequences. It may be possible that a licence of a money lender may be lost. The office of the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders does not retain the money lenders licence, it only maintains the register of money lenders, in which it enters all the details of the money lenders licence including the person in whose favour money lenders licence is issued and the period for which the licence is issued. Therefore, in such a situation, the party would be able to secure only the extract of the entries made in the register of money lenders. If it is held that he has no authority to issue a certificate based on the entries made in the register of money lenders, it would result in defeating the just cause because the money lenders licence of the party has been lost and he has no other evidence to show that he held money lenders licence at the relevant point of time. As such, we are of the view that in the light of the authority vested in the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders under the Act, as stated above, he in law is entitled to issue a certificate based on the entries made in the register of money lenders maintained in his office showing that a particular person held money lenders licence for a particular period. Therefore, the contention of Sri Seshagiri Rao that the Assistant Registrar of Money Lenders has
no authority to issue a certificate based on the entries made in the register of money lenders cannot be accepted. It is accordingly rejected.
18. The second contention of Sri Seshagiri Rao is that the certified copies of the money lenders licences produced at Sl. Nos. 1, 5 and 7 are not admissible. This contention also cannot at all be sustained. Original money lenders licences have been produced before the Additional Judge of Small Causes in Small Cause No. 57 of 1982 and Small Cause No. 1068 of 1983. Similarly, the original money lenders licence at Sl. No. 7 was produced before the City Civil Court. The Court before which an original document is produced and marked in the case is entitled to issue a certified copy of the same and such certified copy, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 63 of the Evidence Act is admissible. Therefore, we are of the view that the above contention is liable to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that production of the aforesaid documents mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 9 as additional evidence is required to be allowed. Accordingly, the additional evidence is allowed to be produced. The documents produced with the application at Sl. Nos. 1, 5, 6, “7 and 9 are marked as Exs. P-9 to P-13 respectively.
19. The next question for consideration is whether the case should be remitted or a finding should be called for from the trial Court in view of the permission granted to the appellant to produce the additional evidence. Five documents are permitted to be produced as additional evidence. Two of them are the copies of the entries made in the register maintained in the office of, and issued by, the Assistant Registrar of Money and the other documents are certified copies of the original documents i,e. Money Lenders Licences — certified copies are issued by a Court. Thus, the production of these documents is sufficient and no further proof is required. Therefore, we are of the view that it is neither necessary to remit the case nor to call for a finding. Point Nos. 1 and 4 are accordingly answered in the affirmative.
POINT NO. 2
20. The plaintiff who has been examined as PW-1 has deposed regarding execution of the pronote Ex. P-3 and the consideration receipt Exhibit P-4 and also the endorsement made on Ex. P-3 which is marked as Ex. P-5. Apart from the evidence of the plaintiff, there is also the evidence of PW-2 Ankaiah (defendant-3) and PW-3 Rangaiah, the scribe of Ex. P-5. In addition to this, execution of the suit pronote is not disputed by defendants 1 and 2. The trial Court also, on considering the evidence on record, has held that execution of Exhibits P-3 and P-4 is proved. We see not reason to differ from the view taken by the trial Court. Exhibits P-3 and P-4 clearly recite that the amount advanced was Rs. 20,000/- and the interest agreed was 1.75 per cent per month. Therefore, point No. 2 is answered in the affirmative.
POINT NO. 3
21. Exhibit P-5 is the endorsement made on the reverse of Exhibit P-3. It is signed by the 3rd defendant. It contains two signatures of the 3rd defendant; one above the revenue stamp and the other on the revenue stamp. The 3rd defendant has been examined as PW-2 and he has admitted that he has assigned the debt under Exhibit P-3 on receipt of a sum of Rs. 31,433.20 Ps. In addition to this, PWs. 1 and 3 have also spoken to this. The trial Court also has held that Exhibit P-5 is proved and as such there was assignment of the debt due under Exhibit P-3 by the 3rd defendant to the plaintiff. However, it is contended before us by Sri Seshagiri Rao that Exhinit P-5 contains two signatures of the 3rd defendant; one above the revenue and the other on the revenue stamp, therefore, it is clear that the signature on the revenue stamp has been obtained subsequent to the writing of Exhibit P-5. Therefore, the assignment is invalid in law because at the time of signing Exhibit P-5 revenue stamp was not affixed and the signature of the 3rd defendant was not obtained on it. This contention is not supported by the evidence on record. No doubt, there are two signatures of the 3rd defendant below the endorsement assigning the pronote, one above the revenue stamp and the other on
the revenue stamp. The 3rd defendant in his evidence has stated that he made over the pronote to the plaintiff after taking Rs. 31,433-20 Ps. from the plaintiff and made an endorsement on the pronote as per Exhibit P-5. He has also further stated that Exhibit P-5 was written by P.W. 3. He has also stated that at the time of writing Exhibit P-5 by P.W. 3, S. Chinnappa was present. In the cross-examination he has stated thus :
“After assignment of shara written, then I signed it and then Rangaiah signed it as scribe. After I assigned the pronote in favour of plaintiff, he did not ask me to sign again. I see Ex. P-5(a). It is not true to suggest that I have signed without affixing stamp. It is not true to suggest that at the time of filing the suit, plaintiff came and after affixing stamps, he took my signature.”
Thus, the 3rd defendant has denied the case of defendants 1 and 2 that he signed the assignment shara without affixing the revenue stamp. In addition to this P.W. 3 Rangaiah the scribe of Ex. P. 5 has specifically deposed that after the shara was written the 3rd defendant Ankaiah counted the money and after affixing two revenue stamps two signatures were put by Ankaiah. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the 3rd defendant put his two signatures because if by chance the stamps were to be removed, the signature be there on the document. He has also further denied the suggestion that Ex. P. 5(a) was signed first and long after that, at the time of filing the suit another signature on the stamp was put. Therefore, the evidence on record clearly established that Ankaiah assigned the pronote debt to the plaintiff by signing below the assignment shara Ex. P. 5 after affixing the revenue stamps. Hence point No. 3 is answered in the affirmation.
22. We may also refer to the contention urged by Sri Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the second defendant. It is contended by him that as the claim in the suit is based on the assignment of the pronote debt by defendant No. 3 to the plaintiff. Section 30 of the Act is attracted and as such the third defendant before assigning the pronote Ex. P.-3 ought to have issued notice as required by clause (c) of
sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. we may only point out that whether there was a notice issued under Section 30(1)(c) of the Act or not is not a pure question of law. It is a question of fact. The contention was not raised in the written statement nor was it urged before the trial Court and no issue was raised. We do not get any indication either in the pleadings or the evidence adduced by the parties. It is highly hazardous to allow such a point to be raised at the stage of appeal that too only during the course of hearing without any application seeking appropriate amendment to the written statement. Failure to issue a notice before assignment of the pronote has serious consequences as provided under Section 30 of the Act. A person who contravenes the provisions contained in subsection (1) of Section 30 of the Act is liable to indemnify any other person who is prejudiced by such contravention. In addition to that the contravention of Section 30 of the Act also leads to penal consequences as provided by Section 39 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that if we allow this contention to be raised at the appellate stage during the course of hearing, it would cause great injustice and prejudice to the third defendant. Therefore, we are of the view that the contention should not be allowed to be raised at the appellate stage.
POINT NO. 5
23. The plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 1.75% per month on the sum of Rs.20,000/- from 10-9-1980. The rate of interest at 1.75% per month comes to 21% per annum. Section 28 of the Act specifically provides that the State Government may from time to time by notification fix the maximum rates of interest for any local area or class of business of money lending in respect of secured and unsecured loans. Subsection (2) thereof further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being to force, no agreement between a money lender and a debtor for payment of interest at a rate exceeding the maximum rate fixed by the State Government under sub-section (1) shall be valid and no Court shall in any suit to which the Act applies award interest exceeding the said
rates. Sub-section (3) to Section 28 of the Act is not relevant for our purpose. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 28 of the Act has issued the Notification bearing No. SO 2777 dated 6th July 1965 fixing the rate of interest in respect of secured loans at 15% and unsecured loans at 18%. Therefore, it is not at all open to the plaintiff to claim interest irrespective of the agreement between him and the debtor at the rate more than 18% per annum because the loan in question is an unsecured loan. However, in this case, we need not discuss as to at what rate the interest should be allowed in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff may be allowed interest from the date of the pronote till the date of suit at 12% and from the date of suit till realisation at 6%. This submission is placed on record and Point No. 5 is answered as follows :
“The plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs. 20,000/- from 10-9-1980 till the date suit i.e., 8-8-1983 and at 6% from the date of suit on the sum of Rs. 20,000/- till the date of realisation. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs.”
24. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs throughout for a sum of Rs. 20,000/ – with interest at 12% from 10-9-1980 to 8-8-1983 i.e., the date of the suit. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest at 6% from the date of suit till the date of realisation on the sum of Rs. 20,000/-.
25. Appeal allowed.
