The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in K.Sudersanam v. S.Venkat Raor, K.Vara lakshmi Vs Syed 'ArR

'l'he defendant, who was involved in a small export busine'ss, became acquainted with the sons of plaintiff, who owns a rice mill business. As they belonged to the same caste, the farnily members of both parties became acquainted with each ot-her. The defendant would often borrow money from the plaintiff and his fztmily members. on 01.08.1997, the plaintiff lent Rs,.3,50,0OO/- to the defendant under a promissory note, with interest @ 360/o p.a, for the defendant's joint Hindu family needs irnd rice mill business. The defendant's father had also requesl.ed the plaintiff over the phone to advance the loan. Despite, promising to repay within a month, the defendant failed to do sr>, and instead kept postponing the repayment on various pretext:;. Plaintiff then issued a legal notice on Lg.O2.1998, I 2 which was returned after seven days with the endorsement "addressee Seven days absent, hence returned to the sender." As such, plaintiff filed the said suit. The defendant denied all the material allegations in the

3. plaint, including acquaintance between his family and the ptaintiffs family, and the alleged execution of promissory note. However, he admitted that both parties belonged to the Vysya community and knew each other through Sri T. Babu Rao, the eldest son of plaintiff, with whom the defendant had business dealings and joint ventures. These ventures were terminated in the first half of LggT due to the differences between them. The defendant claimed that he never borrowed Rs.3,SO,OOOl- from the plaintiff on 01.08.1997, and that the demand promissory note is a forged and fabricated document. He also stated that he had no knowledge of the demand notice and denied the incidental allegations. Without prejudice to his above contentions, the defendant argued that the plaintiff s conduct in charging interest at 3;6oh per annum suggests that he is a money lender. The defendant claimed that he learnt that plaintiff was carrying on the busine.ss of lending money at exorbitant interest rates, compounded at 360/o per anntlm, t / 3 ,n withotLt obtaining necessary money lending license under the Andhra Pradesh (-lelangana Area) Money Lenders Act (for short 'Mone1, Lenders ActJ. Therefore, the defendant contended that the srrit is not maintainable. The defendant also raised additic nal grounds, stating that the suit should have been filed against the Joint Hindu Family, and that the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence prayed for dismissal of the r;uit u.'ith exemplary costs.

4. Ilasing on the said pleadings, the trial Court framed two issues. On behalt of the plaintiff, Pws.l and 2 are examined and E>:s.A.1 to A.7 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, he himsel: was examined as Dw.I and Exs.B.l and 8.2 are marke<l.

5. f.fter hearing both sides and the material placed on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff is not holding any money lending license on the date of execution of promissory note. As such, he is not entitled for recovery of the said amount. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this ap oeal is filed by the plaintiff. :l 4

6. Heard Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Parismita Saihia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. During pendency of appeal, the first appellant-plaintiff in the suit died as such, his L.R. was brought on record as 2'd appellant to this appeal suit.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the trial Court has not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective, it failed to see that the first appellant is not money lender within the meaning of Money Lenders Act and respondent did not discharge the burden caste upon him to prove that first appellant is a money lender within the meaning of the Money Lenders Act. There is no systematic activity of money lending on the part of lirst appellant. As such, he cannot be debarred from recovering the loan amount from the defendant- re spondent.

8. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in K.Sudersanam Vs S.Venkat Raor, K.Vara lakshmi Vs Syed 'ArR 1963 (APl 442, / r : i I I i I : i i I ; t I t l i 5 () Khasi:m Hussain2, N.Chinnapareddi Vs Tandayi Subbaiah & anoth,sr3, Somanath Baraman & others Vs Raja o S.V.Jagannatha Rao4, Learned counsel further contended that though the trial court gave finding on issue No. i stating that Ex.A.1 is a valid document, it also observed that defendant took loan ol' Rs.3,SO,O OO l- from the plaintiff, but dismissed the suit only on the ground that the first appellant is not having any licence to lend money, though he is not a professional money Iender and it is only given at the request of respondent for his family necessities. As such, he does not require any money lending licence. In support of her contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment in Ratakonda Raghu Naidu Vs Kolla Sivararn Prasad and auothers, wherein the relevant para reads 4s undr:r : "Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Komrauelli Varalarmiv. Sged K,z.sim Flussoin, 1962 (21 An. WR 137, in which it has been ht:ld that four isolated transactions of money-lending does not attract the definition of money-lender within the meaning of the Hyderabad Money l,enders Act. The Division Bench has further held that the definition of "money-lender" envisages ncrt mere money lending on some occasions but there must be a certain degree of system and continuity about the trirnsactions, and only those classes of persons whose regular bu siness is to advance money and not those who advance m{)neys casually. In this decision, the observations made 'z t962 (2) ALT 210) 31969 (2) APrJ 109 (SN) '1972 (21 .\LT r49 s 2Oo3 (2)ALD (Crl) 9s6 (AP) I 6 r-n in Munagala Yadagiriv. Pittala Veeraiall (1958) 1 An.WR 413, have been quoted which are as follows: "Under this Act, a professional money-lender, who has not obtained a licence, cannot maintain a suit in a Civil Court for recovery of the amount due to him. The Court shall dismiss his suit. But a person who seeks to non-suit the plaintiff should necessarily allege and establish that. the"plaintiff is a professional money-lender. Indeed Subsection (21 of Section 9 in ciear terms, says that if it is proved that the plaintiff is a money-lender as defined in Sub-section (7) of Section 2 but does not hold a licence, the Court shall dismiss his suit. Obviously, the plaintiff cannot prove the negative uiz., that he is not a professional money-lender. It is for the defendant to allege and prove that the plaintiff is a professional money- Iender."

9. On the other hand, Iearned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no illegality in the judgment of trial Court. The trial Court rightly dismissed the suit and during the course of trial, the first plaintiff himself submitted the document under Ex.A.4 - money lending license dated 30.12.1998 which itself shows that he is a professional money lender and on the date of execution of Ex.A.I-promissory note, there is no licence to the first appellant. As such, suit is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss this appeal suit.

10. Considering the submissions made by both the parties now, the point to be determined is whether dismissal of suit for not possessing the money lending license is bad in law ? I / 7 ,n POrNll : 1 1. As there is a finding with regard to Ex.A. I that respondent received pro-note amount from the hrst appcilant, there is no cross-appeal or cross-objections filed by the resporLdent herein against the said finding.

12. 'lhe contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that ttre first appellant was not the professional money lender, therefc,re, license under the Money Lenders Act is not required which contention was not considered by the trial Court. Going through the said contention, originally while filing the suit the contenlion of first appellant is that for the family necessities of the respondent, he obtained loan of Rs.3,5O,OO0/-. Pw.2 is an Attesto:: to the said document and he was examined to prove execution of Ex.A.l promissory note and finding of the trial Court is that it is proved by examination of Pw.l and liling of docum<:nt under Ex.A.1. Except the suggestion that the signature on Ex.A.l is not of respondent, receiving cash of Rs.3,50,OOO/- was not disputed. As such, the trial Court gave a finding that it is proved. ? i 8 -]

13. Pw.1 liled Ex.A.4 money lending licence dated 3O.L2.1998. With regard to the same, the evidence on record is that in cross-examination of first plaintiff he stated that respondent did not borrow any amount from him, whereas he admitted filing of O.S.No.187 of 1998 on the file of Il-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, against B.Venugopal for recovery of Rs. l,76,060l- and the other suit against him on the f,le of Principal Senior Civit Judge, Warangal is pending in which he gave evidence. He also admitted that suit in O.S.No.l87 of 1998 was dismissed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, as he was found doing money lending business without licence. Pw.1 also admitted that on 01.08.1997 i.e., on the date of 'execution of Ex.A. 1, he was not holding money lending licence. According to the respondent, first appellant was declared as money lender and was doing business without licence. The admission of Pw.1 shows that first plaintiff has lent amount on three occasions to B.Venugopal and filed suits against him. The suit in O.S.No.3O of 1998 was decreed vide Ex.A.S and suit in O.S.No.31 of 1998 against the same defendant was also decreed vide Ex.A.6. Ex.A.4 is the copy of money lending license dated 30.12.1998 issued by MRO to the Iirst plaintiff for doing money lending business tlll 21.12.L999- When the document was filed before ( 9 the Court, the defendant raised an objection as it is a photo stat copy, later he reported no objection, as such, it was marked as Ex.A.4. The suit transaction took place on O1.08.1987 and as on the date of execution of Ex.A.l there is no money lending licence to the first appellant. L4. f'urther, Exs.A.5 and A.6 filed by the first appellant shows that hr: also lent amount to other persons which establishes that th: first appellant is doing money lending business without any licence. Furthermore, the first appellant himself filed Ex.A.4 which itself shows that he is doing money lending businesis which is contrary to the evidence adduced by the first appellant in the trial Court. Filing the suits against various persons; for recovery of amount and admission of first appellant himself by filing Ex.A.4 shows that he is a professional money lender :rnd it is also an admitted fact that as on the date of Ex.A.l lhere is no money lending licence to the first appellant and it rvas obtained subsequently on 30. L2.1998 and without money lending licence he cannot recover the same. tn Bhagwandas Hemandas Lalwani Vs Md. YousuF, the High Court d,:alt with the provisions of Section 2 (41, 2 (7) and 3 of 6 1982 AUr (NOC)124 lI 10 7-y the Money Lenders Act and observed that on the date of execution of suit transaction, the plaintiff was not possessing the licence. As such, in vie'uv of the language employed by the legislature in Secti on 9 (21the imperative duty of the Court is to dismiss the suit.

15. In Kaloji Talusappa Gangavathi Vs Khyanagouda and othersT the Honble Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had not obtained a licence when he advanced money to the defendants on the transactions of mortgage and promissory note. By virtue of Sub-section (5)(a) of Section 3 the plaintiff was prohibited from carrying on in any district the. business of money-lending without obtaining a licence provided for in Sub- s0ction (2). Section 9(21 expressly provides that a suit filed by a money-lender who did not hold a licence granted under Section 3 shall be dismissed. In the present case the plaintiff did not hold any licence. There is no dispute that the amount advanced under the transactions of the mortgage and the promissory note constituted loans. Since the plaintiff was at the date of transactions carrying on business as a money-lender without a licenie, the Court was bound to dismiss his suit for recovery of ? (r970l3 SCC 862 11 I i the arnounts advanced in the course of his business as a money-lender.

16. In the present case also on 01.08.1997 there is no money Iendin;3 licence to the first appellant and it was obtained subsecluent to Ex.A.1 which itself shows that he is a profesr;ional money lender and prior to filing of this suit, he also liled vzrrious recov(:ry suits. As such, there is no illegality in the findinp;s of the trial Court that as on the date of execution of Ex.A.1, there is no license to the first appellant. Therefore, the first a::pellant is not entitled for recovery of the suit amount. There are no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

77. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. lvliscellaneous petitions, pending, if afly, shall stand closed. :/ SD/.T.VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR I I ffe+SfRAR-z TION OFFICER /,TRUE COPY/ To,

1. The lll Additional District Judge, Warangal. (with record 2. One CC to SriVedula Srinivas, Advocite tOpUCI 3. One CC to SriT.S. Praveen Kumar, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies s Kam/PSL W 'ti- r';r ' ii.:iI!:t r!.4i.{:'}. ,i HIGH C:OURT DATEDT:1 9/08/2025 ./ n {' o o t * 21 lrt{ ?I?6 * JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.li1 of 2007 DISMIS:SING OF THE APPEAL SUIT 1 G ,1,1" \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ]}VENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT NO: 61 OF 2007 Between:

1. Tammana Seetaramanjaneyulu (died) per L.R. appellant No.2 2. Mrs.T.P.B. Swarna kumari, Wo. Late. T. Seetaramanjaneyulu, Age:56 years, Rio. 10-1-56, Srinivasa Colony, Warangal District. Appellant 2 is brought on record as L.R. of deceased appellant-1 as per court orderdated 21-7-OOinASMP-1353/08 ...APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF AND Chittimalla Sudhakar Rao, @ Sudhakar, S/o Nagabhushanam, Age:58 years, R/o 8-4-11, Srikrishna Colony, Warangal, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENT'DEFENDANT Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 27-10-2OOG in OS No.89 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District Judge, Warangal. 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 case and upon hearing the argument of Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, counsel appearing Sri Vedula Srinivas, Advocate for the Appellants and M/s. Parismita Saihia, counsel appearing SriT.S. Praveen Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the first appetlant is not entitled for recovery of the Suit amount. 2. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed; and 3. That there shall be no order as to costs. .r--i;:..8r€z .{' ,/ ,/ , /,/ SD/.T.VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional Drstrict Judge, Warangal 2. Two tlD Copies Kam/PSL M/ i I I i I i I HIGH COURT DATEE):19/08/2025 ,/ ,r' DECRE:E AS.No.t61 of 2007 DISMISSING OF THE AP,PEAL SUIT \ b