Udham Singh vs Puran Singh

The only question that is involved in this letters patent appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was right in reversing the decision of lower appellate Court on the question whether the appellant was or was not a money-lender.

The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 1495/- on the basis of two pronotes dated 7th November, 1961. This suit was contested by the defendant-debtor. On the pleadings of the parties, the following three issues were framed:-

"1. Whether the pronotes in suit were executed by the defendant for consideration?

Did the pronotes require presentation?

Whether the plaintiff is a money-lender? If so, its effect?"

Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were found in favour of the plaintiff. On issue No. 3, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was a money-lender and could not bring the present suit without obtaining a money-lender''s licence. Therefore, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff''s suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion after consideration of the evidence that the plaintiff was not a money-lender and accordingly reversed the decision of the trial Court after maintaining the findings of that court after maintaining the findings of that Court on issues Nos. 1 and 2. The result was that the plaintiff''s suit was decreed. The defendant then came up in second appeal to this Court. The learned Single Judge reversed the decision of the lower appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court. The only issue that was debated before the learned Single judge was the third issue. The learned Single, Judge, after setting down the following ten facts, which had been found by the Courts below namely:-

"1. Rs. 500/- advanced on 23-12-1959 on the basis of a pronote, Exhibit D-1, to one Chanan Ram son of Kartar Chand of village Aladipur, carrying interest at 1 per cent, per annum.

Rs. 300/- advanced on 17-5-1961 on the basis of a pronote, Exhibit D-2 to Walaiti Ram of village Aladldipur, carrying interest at 1 per cent, per mensem.

Rs. 300/- advanced on 8-8-1963 on the basis of a pronote, Exhibit D-3 to Kartar Singh son of Rur Singh Jat of village Daultapur, carrying interest at 12 per cent. per annum.

Rs. 100/- (Rs. 163/?) advanced on 27-10-1963 on the basis of a pronote, Exhibit D-4, to Lachhman Dass son of Beli Ram, carrying interest at 1 per cent. per mensem.

Rs. 100/- advanced on 17-12-1963 on the basis of a pronote, Exhibit D-5 to one Puran Singh son of Harnam Singh, carrying interest at 10 per cent, per annum.

Rs. 465/- advanced on 16-5-1964 on the basis of a pronote, Exhibit D-6 to Walaiti Ram Aggarwal of village Alaldipur carrying interest at 1 per cent. per mensem.

Rs. 40/- advanced on 3-7-1965 on the basis of a pronote, Exhibit D-7 to Charan Singh of Kishangarh, carrying interest at 1 per cent. per mensem.

Rs. 250/- advanced on 18-9-1965 on the basis of pronote, Exhibit D-8, to Chanan Ram son of Kartar Chand of village Alaldipur, carrying interest at 15 per cent. per annum."

Rs. 1000/- advanced on 2-4-1964 on the basis of a pronote, Exhibit P-10, to Gharib Singh Chela, son of Jawahar Singh of village Sikandpur, carrying interest at 1 per cent. per mensem.

Rs. 528/- advanced on 17-4-11964 on the basis of a pronote, Exhibit P-11 to Kartar Singh son of Kabul Singh of village Kishangarh, carrying interest at 1 per cent. per mensem."

Drew the inference that the plaintiff was a money-lender. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the second appeal stood concluded by a finding of fact was overruled. The plaintiff who is dissatisfied with the decision has come up in an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, and that is how the matter has been placed before us.

The respondent was served. He did not engage any counsel. Consequently, a registered post-card for an actual date was sent to him. Therefore, the service is complete and we are determining the appeal in the absence of the respondent.

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended before us that the learned Single Judge was in error in reversing the decision of the lower appellate Court on a question of fact. The lower appellate Court had no consideration of the facts already enumerated come to a firm conclusion that the plaintiff was not a money-lender. The question whether the plaintiff is or is not a money-lender is purely a question of fact and any inference drawn from facts qua that binding in second appeal. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Meenakshi Mills, Madurai Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, , laid the four following propositions at page 65 of the report:-

"1. When the point for determination is a pure question of law such as construction of a statute or document of title, the decision of the Tribunal is open to reference to the Court u/s 66(1).

When the point for determination is a mixed question of law and fact, while the finding of the Tribunal on the facts found is final, its decision as to the legal effect of those findings is a question of law which can be reviewed by the Court.

A finding on a question of fact is open to attack u/s 66(1) as erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.

When the finding is one of fact, the fact that it is itself an inference from other basic facts will not later its character as one of fact."

The position vis-a-vis Section 100 of the CPC is the same. In fact the decisions, which their Lordships considered at page 64 of the report were decisions u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. To the present proposition No. 4 fully applies. It is not a case where the decision of the lower appellate Court was not based on evidence. The entire evidence had been taken into consideration and thereafter the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not a money-lender. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court.

For the reasons recorded above, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and restore that of the lower appellate Court. As there is no representation for the respondent, there will be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.