K. Kannan, J.@mdashThe appeal is filed by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed for recovery of money said to have been lent by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant denied the borrowing and also contended that there were material alterations made in the document. His principal contest was that the plaintiff was himself a money lender and he not having registered as such under the Punjab Registration of Money Lender''s Act, 1938 was barred from instituting the suit. The Courts below framed an issue whether the plaintiff had been a money lender and whether the suit was maintainable, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court found that he was a money lender and the suit was not competent. In the so doing, the Appellate Court was affirming the basis of reasoning given by the trial Court with reference to his status as a money lender. The Courts below have observed that the plaintiff had admitted himself to have filed decree for recovery of Rs. 22,000/- against some other person and he had also been called by the Deputy Commissioner for giving statement regarding his money transactions. He was also admitted to have lent monies to more than 20 persons. With the quality of evidence that had been brought as admission of the plaintiff, the trial Court and the Appellate Court held that he was a money lender within the definition of the Act and the suit for recovery by the plaintiff without registration mandated by law was not maintainable.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues on the point of formulation regarding the maintainability of the suit that his status as a money lender itself was wrongly considered by the Courts below. The counsel would refer me to the decision rendered by this Court that placed the burden of proof on the person that contends that the plaintiff was a money lender and the suit was barred. The issue relating to burden of proof is well taken and I will take it that the burden was on the defendant to establish that the plaintiff had been a money lender. It is a trite law that admission is the best form of proof and if the defendant was relying on admission by the plaintiff in the course of cross examination, the fact that the defendant himself did not offer any evidence will not require a new burden to be again cast and to be discharged. In this case, the two Courts below have considered the admission which he was making and if the inference was that the plaintiff had been in the business of money lending, it should be only taken that the finding had been rendered by an appreciation of evidence on a point of fact on the basis of which it applied the law to find that the suit was not maintainable. The learned counsel refers me to the decision in Balvinder Singh Vs. M/s. Basaikhi Ram Saina Ram 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 467 that refers to the issue of burden of proof and I have already dealt with it. In two other decisions, one in
