1. These two applications in revision may be disposed of by the same judgment as the facts are very similar.
2. The applicants who are plaintiffs in two different suits are money-lenders by profession and their practice of money-lending is something like this. They send munims or trusted servants of theirs with money to villages in different districts with instructions to lend money to people who might stand in need of borrowing. It is alleged that the defendants in these two cases borrowed money from the plaintiff's agents, in one case in the district of Bareilly and in the other in the district of Shahjahanpur. The plaintiffs are residents of the district of Moradabad. The debtors did not pay and thereupon they brought the two suits for recovery of the money at Moradabad.
3. The defendants did not appear. The plaintiffs' agents who had lent the money in each case went into the witness-box and swore that there was an express agreement by the debtors that they would re-pay the loans at Moradabad. The agents further produced memoranda made in the account books of the plaintiffs to the effect that the borrowers had agreed to re-pay the money at Moradabad.
4. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court disbelieved the evidence given to the effect that there was an express agreement to re-pay the money at Moradabad. The evidence was trust worthy and should have been accepted. He was of opinion that it was not likely to have been the case that the borrowers would come to Moradabad to make payment. Evidently the learned Judge thought that the borrowers had agreed to pay at their own homes where the loans were advanced.
5. Assuming that the evidence that the defendants had agreed to pay at Moradabad was untrustworthy, we have to rely on presumptions of law alone. For there is no evidence to show that the borrowers and the lenders had agreed that repayment would be made only at the borrowers' place. The presumption of law was pointed out in the cases quoted by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court himself, and it is this: that in the absence of a contract to the contrary the borrower ought to seek out the lender for payment. The learned Judge was therefore not justified in ignoring the rulings of this Court. They were really not quite distinguishable, specially the case reported as Bangali Mal v. Firm Ganga Ram-Ashrafi Mal AIR 1923 All 465.
6. I allow the applications in revision, set aside the decrees of the Court below and decree the plaintiff's claim in each case against the defendants with costs and interest at 6 per cent. per annum from the data of the institution of the suit till recovery.