and submittecl that the concept of loan as delined above is altogether different. Insolar as Section 138 ol the Act is concerned, it is enough to prove that it lr,as a legally enforceable debt, whether there was a money lending licence held by the complainant or not as required under the said Act. Simply because there is no money lending licence, the amount lent by the appellant cannot be said to be a 'loan' within the meaning of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli. The Court below was not right in relying upon the Judgment reported in BABA FINANCE CORPORATION case (1 supra) and dismissing the case of the complainant. What all Section 2(41 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli contemplates is that loan means, it should necessarily state about the payment of interest by the loanee and in the absence of claiming any interest under Ex.P4, as per the .Judgment reported in BABA FINANCE CORPORATION case (1 supra), at the most the complainant may not maintain a suit against the accused-respondent as contemplated under Section 9(21 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli. This does not mean that the complainant has not proved that there was legaily enforceable liability against the respondent. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that in view of Ex.P4 promissory note read with Ex.PS confirmation letter issued by the respondent, the appellant-complainant has made out legally enlorceable liabiiity against the respondent. Therefore, the Court below was not right in holding that the complainant has not proved the legally enlorceable liability against the respondent."
