The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent : SRIJ.VENKATESWARA REDDYISRI G.R.PRATAP REDDY (NOT PRESENT) The Court made the following: ORDER ! I t i ! i ': ; I I l I i ; ! I J I t I I I ..f$' I I I i i : I I i THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI Aooeal Suit N0.2690 OF 1999 GMENT: Heard Ms. Yogita Prakash, learned counsel, representing Mr.M. Papa Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellant.

2. This appeal is directed against the decree and Judgment, dated 19.07.1999 in O.S.No.144 of 1993 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

3. The appellant is the defendant (hereafter 'the defendant') and the suit was filed for recovery of money of Rs.99,928/- with future interest @ 12o/o per annum from 0'l . 1 0.1993 till realization.

4. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence, decreed the suit yrde judgment, dated 19.07.1999 for a sum of Rs.78,181/- with future interest @ 12o/o per annum on the principal sum of Rs.60,246i- from the date of suit till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred this appeal.

5. ln appeal, learned counsel for the defendant would contest the impugned Judgment on two grounds. Firstly, the trial Court 2 NTR,J 4.5.No.2690 1999 erred in properry appreciating the receipuEx.Bl and the preading of the defendant that the suit claim has been repaid prior to filing of the suit. secondty, the transaction fails within the scope of money rending business and in the absence.of money rending licence, the suit claim shall fails.

6. ln spite of proper notice, none appeared for respondenUplai ntiff (hereafter,the p la i ntiff, )

7. I have perused the materiar and carefuily considered the submissions of the tearned counser for the defendant.

8. At the outset, the defendant has not disputed the suit transaction. The orat evidence of p.w.1 coupred with day Book extract, ledger extract, and the admission of defendant as D.w.1 the suit claimed transaction shall be taken as estabtished. 9 The defence of the defendant is that the suit amount was repaid under Ex.B-1

10. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff and his brothers are running the business and his brother being the Kartha of the family, received the dues from the defendant against the transactions made by the plaintiff. l ,/, /. d I ! ! J NTR,J A.S:.No.2690 1999

11. As per the plaintiff, the proprietary concern in name and style of M/s. Murali Traders transacted with the defendant. The defendant though contested that the plaintiff is a joint family concern, except pleading and self serving sta'tement in his oral evidence, no material has been brought on record to accept much less to conclude this fact

12. Be that as it may, a perusal of Ex.B1 indicating that on

06.04.199'l one Bala Krishnaiah received a sum of Rs.1,74,7381 in total under two heads by mentioning that amount due from larger traders to medium traders is Rs.1,30,8281 and amount due from Sri Pandu Ranga proprietors to Murali Traders is Rs.43,920/-. Further, except the statement of D.Ws.1 and 2 that these amounts are paid against the suit dues, nothing on record to show that these amounts were paid towards the suit claim. That apart, when the entire suit claim is of Rs.99,628/- including interest, why defendant would pay Rs.1,30,828/- against the suit dues is left un- explained. This mismatch is worsening the defence raised by the defendant. Furthermore, if the amounts paid are towards the suit dues, the defendant could have examined the brother of I I 4 NTN"I A.5.No.2690 1999 plaintiff to whom the amount said to have been paid. For the reasons best known, the defendant remained silent during the trial proceedings. ln that position inevitable conclusion should be against the defendant's pleading

13. ln regard to money lending licence, it is to be noted that neither in the reply notice nor in the written statement, the defendant has pleaded that the transaction was part of money lending business of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plea of the plaintiff that during the course of their business between the business concern and to support the business of the defendant, the moneys were advanced and the goods were given on credit basis remaining uncontraverted. ln that view, the transaction shall be considered as one between the business entities.

14. Further, Section 2(4) of the Money Lenders Act is considered the proviso specifies that the transactions between the firms in their ordinary course of business would not amount to money lender transaction. In this statutory position, the contention of the defendant that the transaction requires money lenders licence falls flat. \ \ .ll 5 NTR,J A.5.No.2690 l,999

15. The trial Court having regard to these aspects concluded that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. on re-appreciation, even this court finds no tenable ground or impropriety in the findings recorded in the impugned judgment rn effect, this appeal is failing on merit and accordingly dismissed No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, stands closed. /,TRUE COPY" sd/- P. c N AGABHUSHAMBA i PUTY REGISTRAR .r'' \ :SECTION OFFICER .l-^? To,

1. Tlre Senior Civil Judge'lrlizamabad' (With Records) 2. One CC to Sri M'P;p; Reddy'-Advoiate (OPUC) 3 orre cc to sri i]ri.?i'r.liJii!?'n"aov , Rdro"ate (oPUc) 4 one cc to sri th iJ;;i;i'iGoov ' Advocate (oPUC) 5. Two CD CoPies Ks/gh Qr^q, :... : - ::i :' -: ' -:: ,r ,I/ f1 HIGH COURT DATED:05/0212025 JUDGMENT A.S.No.2690 of l ggg STArE \ o,J I i ';.1\i ?$15 * r; * Dismissing the Appeal Suit Without costs. c( ,at+\r-f HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD . WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI APPEAL SUIT NO. 2690 OF 1999 Between: Bondugula Laxmipathi S/o Balram Prop.M/s Raja Traders, Nizamabad presently residing at Kamareddy AND ...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT M.Murali, S/o Laxmaiah, Prop.of M/s tt/urali Traders, Nizamabad R/o New Gunj, Namdevwada, Nizamabad .. RESPON DENT/PLAI NTI F F Appeal U/s 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.144 of 1993 dated 19.07.1999 on the file of the Senior Civit .luOgl, Nizamabad. ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Ms.Yogita Prakash, Rep.Sri M.Papa Redciy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri J.Venkateswar Reddy/Sri C.R.Pratap Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent (not present). 'fhis court doth Order and Decree as follows :

1. This appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad 2. Two CD Copies Ks ?^c-, ( ,f tG' HIGH COURT DATED i0510212025 DECREE A,S.No.2690 of 1999 Dismissing the Appeal Suit Without costs. ^t(^ il{\-{