As per case facts, the defendant borrowed a significant sum from the plaintiff's father and executed a Pronote and Receipt. The plaintiff's father passed away, leaving a Will making the ... plaintiff the sole beneficiary entitled to recover the amount. The defendant claimed to have repaid the loan and presented a writing by the plaintiff's father stating the original documents were lost. The plaintiff sought recovery based on the Will. Both lower courts decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the High Court. The question arose whether the suit was maintainable given that the plaintiff's father operated as a money lender without a license, whether the Will was validly proved, whether the plaintiff needed a probate or succession certificate, and if the lower courts correctly assessed the repayment claim and non-joinder objection. Finally, the High Court found that the plaintiff's father was a regular money lender who admittedly lacked a required license, making the suit prima facie not maintainable under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938. The court also noted serious doubts about the Will's authenticity and execution, its lack of registration, and the plaintiff's failure to obtain a probate or succession certificate as mandated by Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act. Additionally, the lower courts failed to frame an issue regarding repayment and misappreciated evidence related to the defendant's repayment claim and the fabricated nature of the Pronote. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, deeming the findings of fact by lower courts as perverse.