Skip to content


Saradindu Sekhar Bannerjee Vs. Lalit Mohan Mazumdar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Cal538
AppellantSaradindu Sekhar Bannerjee
RespondentLalit Mohan Mazumdar and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....his case is that the agreement was that he would repay in two instalments in the year 1346 b.s. the learned judge has accepted the plaintiff's case. the evidence of p. w. 1 and p. w. 2 supports the finding of the judge. the learned judge has believed the evidence of the two witnesses and we see no reason to disbelieve them.2. it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the bengal money-lenders act, 1940. that act deals with money-lending and money-lenders. leaving the purchase money unpaid is leaving a debt unpaid. every loan is a debt but every debt is not a loan. the purchase money due to the plaintiff is a debt due to the plaintiff but is not a loan or a transaction which is in substance a loan. this view finds support from the.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit to enforce an instalment bond dated 29th Falgoon 1342 B.S. The consideration of the bond in suit is the balance of the purchase money due from the defendant to the plaintiff on account of the purchase by the defendant from the plaintiff of certain zamindari, patni and darpatni properties. The money secured by the bond is stated in the bond to be payable in two instalments in the year 1342, one in the month of Asar and the other in the month of Aswin. Plaintiff's case is that the agreement was that the money would be repaid in two instalments in the year 1343 B.S., but through mistake of the scribe instead of the year 1343 B.S. 1342 B.S. was written in the bond, The defendant admits that the scribe made a mistake but his case is that the agreement was that he would repay in two instalments in the year 1346 B.S. The learned Judge has accepted the plaintiff's case. The evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 supports the finding of the Judge. The learned Judge has believed the evidence of the two witnesses and we see no reason to disbelieve them.

2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940. That Act deals with money-lending and money-lenders. Leaving the purchase money unpaid is leaving a debt unpaid. Every loan is a debt but every debt is not a loan. The purchase money due to the plaintiff is a debt due to the plaintiff but is not a loan or a transaction which is in substance a loan. This view finds support from the definition of 'borrower' in the Act. We are therefore of opinion that the appellant is not entitled to get any relief under the Bengal Money-lenders Act. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //