Delhi District Court
M.L.Gupta vs Sandeep Ranjan on 28 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH, DISTRICT JUDGE-11,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
CS DJ No. 611969/2016
CNR No. DLCT010001712007
M. L Gupta,
s/o Sri Ram Gupta,
r/o D-335, West Vinod Nagar,
Near Patparganj,
Delhi-110092. ...Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Sandeep Ranjan,
s/o late Sh. R.C Ranjan
2. Bhagwati Devi @ Promila Gupta,
w/o late Sh. S. C Ranjan,
Both r/o 24/45-B,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi - 110018. ...Defendants.
Date of Filing : 20.11.2007.
Date of Arguments : 17.03.2025.
Date of Judgment : 28.03.2025.
SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND RECOVERY
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for damages and recovery has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is, that marriage was fixed between the daughter of plaintiff namely RG and defendant no. 1 and engagement ceremony was held on 17.11.2006 at hotel Solitaire, Main Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi and in this ceremony, plaintiff spent Rs.62,500/-, the break up of the amount is as under:-
CS No. 611969/2016No. 1 of 25 Digitally
signed by
PARVEEN
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.28
16:58:32
+0530
1. Hotel Solitaire expenses Rs.20,000/-
2. Cash and Vidai for 30 persons Rs.23,575/-
3. Sweets/ Fruits/ Gifts Rs.4,500/-
4. Gold Ring Rs.4,500/-
5. Photographer Expenses Rs.3,600/-
6. Suits/ Sarees/ Dresses Rs.8,000/-
3. The date of marriage was fixed as 10.02.2007. Pursuant to the same, plaintiff completed all the formalities, dispatched the marriage invitation cards, booked community hall of MCD for 29.09.2006 and made payment of Rs.20,510/-, gave Rs. 1,000/- as advance for catering, Rs.6,000/- as advance for tent security, Rs.2,000/- for DJ booking and Rs.3,000/- for marriage invitation cards. However, on 13.01.2007, he received a call from defendant no. 2 who asked him to immediately reach her house. On the next day, he alongwith his son Amit Gupta and other relatives namely- Sh. K. M Gupta, Sh. Virender Kumar Gupta, Sh. Satender Gupta and others went to the house of defendants and was shocked when defendant no. 2 told him that defendant no. 1 had decided not to marry his daughter unless defendant no. 1 was given a car in the marriage. He requested the defendant that he was not in a position to fulfill the demand of the defendants but defendants remained adamant towards their illegal demand. On 16.01.2007, a representative of the defendant reached the house of the plaintiff and repeated the said demand and in the process threatened that the alliance would be broken if the demand was not fulfilled. Defendant no. 2 also telephonically contacted him and made it clear that there was no need to go to her residence because she would not continue the alliance unless, the CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN No. 2 of 25 SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 16:58:39 +0530 demand of car was fulfilled. Plaintiff was traumatized and frustrated. When he overcame the trauma, he requested the defendants to return their valuable articles and advance given to other parties for arrangement of his daughter's marriage but defendants refused to return. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he had spent more than Rs.3 lacs on the aforesaid occasion including Rs.2 lacs given in cash at the time of engagement ceremony. Plaintiff then made a complaint to the ACP CAW Cell upon which FIR No. 163/2007 u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was filed before PS Mandawali. He claimed that he was entitled to recover Rs.3,06,485/- which he spent on marriage arrangement. Hence, the present suit.
4. On being served with the summons for settlement of issues, defendants filed their written statement.
5. In the written statement, a preliminary objection was taken that the plaintiff had not come to the court with clean hands. It was not denied that on 17.11.2006, ring ceremony between defendant no. 1 and daughter of plaintiff had happened. It is however submitted that it was a very simple ceremony in which about 20 adult members participated and necessary things were exchanged by both the parties. Defendants gave one gold necklace set with pair of gold ear rings weighing 20.670 gms which was worth Rs.20,800/- and one gold ring weighing 4.140 gms worth Rs.4265/- to the daughter of the plaintiff. Apart from that, they also gave clothes worth Rs.5775/- which they had purchased from Arun Vastra Bhandar. Apart from that, defendants had also spent Rs.10,000/- on purchase of sweets, fruits, vanity box etc. They further spent Rs.10,000/- on video film, photographer, conveyance etc. In this way, Digitally signed by CS No. 611969/2016 PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
No. 3 of 25 2025.03.28
16:58:46
+0530
defendants spent Rs.45,065/- on the said ceremony. It was then claimed by the defendants that plaintiff's daughter had temperamental issues and the she inquired about ownership of the house in which defendants were residing. On coming to know that the house was in the name of defendant no. 2, she put a condition that defendant no. 1 had to get the house transferred in his name as she could not live with a person who did not even has a house in his name. She also stated that defendant no. 2 had four daughters and defendant no. 1 would have a meager share in the property. Upon these inquiries and conduct of the plaintiff's daughter, defendant no. 1 became frightened and apprehended that the marriage would not be successful as she had already started dictating terms. Matter was brought to the notice of the plaintiff who threatened defendant no. 1 to face bad consequences if he did not marry his daughter. Therefore, defendant no. 1 requested plaintiff to take back the ring given by him during the ring ceremony and to return the jewellry presented by defendants to plaintiff's daughter. Upon this, plaintiff threatened to implicate defendants in a false dowry case. Therefore, defendant no. 1 gave a complaint to SHO PS Tilak Nagar on 23.01.2007 and also served a legal notice dated 23.01.2007 upon the plaintiff to stop threatening and harassing him and to amicably settle the exchange of things. Plaintiff instead of settling the matter, sent a reply dated 28.01.2007 alleging, that he had spent Rs.3 lacs on 17.11.2006 and that marriage date had been fixed as 10.02.2007. However, the marriage date had not been fixed. In the said reply, it was further alleged that demand of car was made and when the same was not fulfilled, marriage was called off. Thereafter, the plaintiff registered FIR against the defendants.
Digitally signed by PARVEENCS No. 611969/2016 PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH
Date:
2025.03.28
No. 4 of 25 16:58:53
+0530
It is submitted that the plaintiff was illegally and wrongly retaining the jewellery ornaments, clothes and other gifts presented by the defendants to his daughter. It was further submitted that no cash whatsoever was given by plaintiff to the defendants at the time of roka ceremony and no cash amount of Rs.2 lacs as given by the plaintiff to the defendants. It is denied that the amount of Rs.23,575/- was given to 30 persons on 17.11.2006 or any amount of Rs.4,500/- was incurred on 19.11.2004 or Rs.4500/- on gold ring on 20.11.2006.
6. On merits, all the allegations levelled in the plaint were denied and the preliminary submissions were reiterated. It is specifically denied that a sum of Rs.62,500/- was spent on roka ceremony or that plaintiff had paid Rs.2 lacs to the defendants as claimed in the plaint. It is also denied that defendants had ever raised any demand of a car.
7. In the replication filed to the written statement, all the averments made in the written statement were denied and the averments of the plaint were reaffirmed.
8. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.03.2008, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.3,06,485/- against the defendants? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to recover pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum or at what other rate? OPP
3. Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
4. Relief.
9. Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence.
Digitally
signed by
PARVEEN
CS No. 611969/2016
PARVEEN SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.03.28
No. 5 of 25 16:59:01
+0530
Plaintiff examined himself as PW1, Krishan Murari Gupta as PW2 and Amit Gupta as PW3. On the other hand, defendants examined defendant no. 1 as DW1.
10. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and carefully perused the record as well as the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties.
11. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff, except stating the dates of events, no arguments have been given.
12. In the written submissions filed on behalf of defendants, it is submitted that the plaintiff and his witnesses have not been able to prove that he had given Rs.2 lacs in cash to the defendant. Even the testimonies and consequent cross examination of PW2 and PW3 regarding the claim of plaintiff giving Rs.2 lacs to the defendant are contradictory. Plaintiff initially deliberately concealed in his plaint that defendant had given his daughter a gold necklace, set of earrings and a gold ring collectively weighing 25 gms and when the defendant brought this fact in his written statement, plaintiff denied it but during his cross examination, he admitted having custody of the gold articles.
13. My issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUES NO. 1 & 21. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.3,06,485/- against the defendants? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to recover pendentelite and future interest @ 18% per annum or at what other rate? OPP
14. Plaintiff, appearing as PW1, deposed on the lines of the CS No. 611969/2016 No. 6 of 25 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 16:59:07 +0530 plaint and deposed that after the match was fixed, date of marriage was also fixed as 10.02.2007. Engagement ceremony took place on 17.11.2006 at Hotel Solitaire where he had spent Rs.62,500/-. He further deposed that after the engagement ceremony, he had dispatched invitation cards to relatives and friends and booked community hall of MCD on 29.09.2006 by making payment of Rs.20,500/-. He had also made advance payment of Rs.1,000/- for catering, Rs.6,000/- for tent security, Rs.2,000/- for DJ booking and Rs.3,000/- for marriage invitation cards. Marriage invitation card was Ex.PW1/A, receipt of Gupta Photo Studio was Ex.PW1/B, receipt of payment of booking of community hall was Ex.PW1/C, receipt of dharamshala Birla Mandir was Ex.PW1/D and copy of complaint dated 03.02.2007 made to DCP was Ex.PW1/E. He further deposed that on 13.01.2007, he received a telephone call from defendant no. 2 calling him to meet her immediately. The very next day, he alongwith K. N Gupta, Virendra Kumar Gupta, Anil Gupta and Satendra Gupta and others went to the house of defendant no. 2 and he was shocked when defendant no. 2 told him that defendant no. 1 decided not to marry his daughter unless, defendant no. 1 got a car in the marriage. He and his relatives told the defendants that they were unable to fulfill the said demand but defendant no. 2 remained adamant. On 10.01.2007, a relative of the defendants came to his house and repeated the demand of Santro car and in the process, he threatened to break the matrimonial alliance if the said demand was not fulfilled. He got very much frustrated from the decision of the defendants and when he got out of the trauma, he asked the defendants to return the valuable articles and money spent on the CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally No. 7 of 25 signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 16:59:18 +0530 occasion and advances made to several parties for the occasion. Defendants flatly refused to return the same. He further deposed that he had given Rs.2 lacs in cash to the defendants at the time of engagement ceremony and in all, he had spent Rs.3 lacs on the occasion. He further deposed that he reported the matter to DCP, CAW Cell, Krishna Nagar. The matter could not reconcile because the defendants were not ready to return the money. Then FIR No. 163/07, PS Mandawali was registered. He further deposed that he was entitled to recovery of Rs.3,06,485/-.
15. When his examination in chief was tendered, as the original of Ex.PW1/C was not produced, the same was marked as Mark A.
16. During his cross examination, he deposed that their first meeting with the family of defendant no. 1 took place in October- November 2006 at Birla Mandir (Laxmi Narayan Mandir). On that day nothing was decided finally. At the end of 2006, he received a call from family of defendant no. 1 that they were agreeable for the marriage of defendant no. 1 with his daughter. On 17.11.2006 ring ceremony had taken place at Solitare Hotel, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. He admitted that the family members of defendant no. 1 gave gold jewellery to his daughter on 17.11.06 which included one necklace and one ring. Besides this no other gold item was given by the family of defendant no. 1 or defendant no. 1. Those gold items were still with them. Five sarees were also given by defendant's family to his daughter which were still with them. He had given one ring to defendant no. 1 which was still with the defendant no.
1. Besides this no other gold item was given to any of the defendants. After 17.11.06, their next meeting with the defendants had taken place in January 2007 at their residence. At the time of first meeting when they CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally signed by No. 8 of 25 PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 16:59:25 +0530 went to the residence of defendants at Tilak Nagar, he was accompanied by Sh. Krishan Murari, Amit (his son) and his wife. Besides these, no other person had gone to the residence of the defendants. He did not know residential address of defendants, however it was in Tilak Nagar. Thereafter, in January 2007 defendants had come to his place to discuss the monitory aspect of the marriage. On being asked what did he mean when he stated that monetary aspects of marriage were discussed, he stated that as per tradition, utensils and other items were to be given in marriage by the bride side. They discussed whether they shall purchase those articles or money should be given to the defendants. They were told that the defendants could get those articles at a cheaper rate and therefore he gave Rs. 2 lakhs to them. He deposed that he had given Rs.2 lacs to the defendants at their residence in January 2007. On being confronted with his examination in chief where he stated that he gave Rs.2 lacs in cash to defendant no. 1, at the time of engagement ceremony, he stated that he had offered the amount at the time of engagement but defendants did not accept the same. Subsequently, the amount was given in January 2007. On being asked whether the plaint had been prepared on his instructions, he stated that initially they received the notice from the defendants and thereafter, he went to his advocate and the present suit was filed. In all, three meetings had taken place between them and the defendants. The first one was at Birla Mandir, the second was at the residence of defendants and last one was at his residence. Again said, they had also gone to the residence of the defendants when they were telephonically informed that defendant no. 1 was not ready for the alliance. He was confronted with his cross CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally signed by PARVEEN No. 9 of 25 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 16:59:31 +0530 examination dated 19.04.2014 recorded before Ld. MM in FIR No. 163/07 PS Mandawali and they were exhibited as Ex.PW1/D1, Ex.PW1/D2 and Ex.PW1/D3. He admitted that Ex.PW1/D5 was sent on his instructions. He did not remember the date and month when he had given Rs.2,00,000/- to the mother of defendant no. 1 but it was in the year 2006 before Roka Ceremony. He had sold one plot measuring 25sq. yards in Khora Colony, Ghaziabad for a consideration of Rs.1,55,000/- and had filed a receipt of this amount. The remaining amount was arranged by him from his personal savings. He denied that Rs.2,00,000/- was never given to any of the defendants. After roka ceremony, he had two meetings with the defendant no. 2 i.e. first in December, 2006 when he had gone to hand over Rs.2,00,000/- to defendant no. 2 and second in January, 2007. Both the meetings had taken place at the residence of the defendants. For the first meeting, he had gone with his son and Krishan Murari. At the time of second meeting, he had gone with Krishan Murari, Virender and Ram Dass. He denied that the expenses mentioned by him in para 4 of the plaint were highly exaggerated and were not the correct expenses. He denied that he had never given Rs.2 lacs for engaged nor he had mentioned it in this manner in his plaint. He denied that defendants never asked for any money or any car and all the story of handing over of Rs.2 lacs and demand of car had been concocted by him.
17. The second witness is Krishan Murari. He deposed that for the alliance of RG, he had introduced defendant no. 1 with plaintiff. During the course of discussion, he had come to know that defendant no. 1 was working as an executive in the call centre Gurgaon and had also CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally signed by No. 10 of 25 PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 16:59:37 +0530 informed that he had his own house. All the issues regarding the marriage were decided amicably and he was present in that meeting. The date of the marriage was fixed as 10.02.2007. Marriage cards were dispatched. Engagement ceremony had held on 17.11.2006 where the gifts were exchanged. Community Hall of MCD was booked by the plaintiff and plaintiff had given Rs.2 lacs in cash to defendant no. 2 in the presence of defendant no. 1 for the purchase of dowry articles of their own choice. On 13.01.2007, plaintiff called him at his residence where he came to know that defendant no. 2 had called the plaintiff at her residence. The very next date, he alongwith plaintiff and other relatives went to the house of defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 refused to marry her son with plaintiff's daughter unless, plaintiff gave a car to defendant no. 1 in the marriage. He alongwith other persons tried to convince the defendants that it was not settled and all that was settled was that plaintiff would spend Rs.3 lacs in the marriage of his daughter. He tried to reconcile the issue but it was then realized that defendants had got better alliance and therefore, they betrayed the plaintiff.
18. During his cross examination, he deposed that it was 5-6 times that he had met defendant no. 2 in connection for this alliance. He was informed about defendant no. 1 by Satyender Kumar Gupta, who had gone to see the boy for his own sister. He had accompanied Satyender Kumar Gupta. He was present in the engagement ceremony.
Plaintiff had incurred expenses of Rs.1 lac for the engagement ceremony. He did not remember whether any cash was given to the defendant. After the engagement ceremony, a sum of Rs.2 lacs was given to Ms. Promila Devi at her house. He did not remember the exact CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally signed by No. 11 of 25 PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 16:59:44 +0530 date, month or year. At the time when Rs.2 lacs was given, he alongwith Ram Dass Gupta (sic). Again said, Ram Dass Gupta was present at the time when he had gone to the house of defendant but at the time when money was paid, he alongwith Mohan Lal Gupta and his son were present. He denied that no date of marriage was fixed. He denied that no community centre was booked or that no amount of Rs.2 lacs was ever paid. He denied that defendants had neither demanded any car nor any gift. He did not know the exact date, month or year when the demand of car was made and volunteered, that it was around the same time. The demand of car was made in his presence and at that time, plaintiff and his son were also present. The demand for the car was made on phone. He denied that no such demand was made on either on phone or in person.
19. The next witness is the son of plaintiff namely Amit Gupta.
He appeared as PW3. He also deposed that after several meetings, match was fixed and date of marriage was fixed as 10.02.2007. Engagement ceremony had held on 17.11.2006 at Solitaire Hotel and his father had spent Rs.62,500/- on the arrangement. He further deposed that his father had given Rs.2 lacs in cash to defendants no. 1 and 2 at the time of engagement ceremony. He further deposed that his father had spent Rs.3 lacs on the said occasion. His father had booked community hall of MCD and made advance payment of Rs.20,500/-, advance payment of Rs.1,000/- for catering, advance payment of Rs.6,000/- for tent security, Rs.2,000/- for DJ booking and Rs.3,000/- for wedding invitation cards. He further deposed that On 13.01.2007, his father received a telephone call from defendant no. 2 calling him to meet urgently. On the very next CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally No. 12 of 25 signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 16:59:50 +0530 day, he, his father and other relatives namely K. N Gupta, Virendra Kumar Gupta, Satendra Gupta and others went to the house of defendant no. 2 where they were shocked when defendant no. 2 told that defendant no. 1 had decided not to marry his sister unless, he got a car in the marriage. On 10.01.2007, a relative of the defendants came to his house and repeated the demand of Santro car and in the process, he threatened to break the matrimonial alliance if the said demand was not fulfilled. He asked the defendants to return the valuable articles and money spent on the occasion and advances made to several parties for the occasion. Defendants flatly refused to return the same. He further deposed that his father reported the matter to DCP, CAW Cell, Krishna Nagar. The matter could not be reconciled because, the defendants were not ready to return the money. Then FIR No. 163/07, PS Mandawali was registered. He further deposed that his father was entitled to recovery of Rs.3,06,485/-.
20. During his cross examination, he deposed that 5-6 meetings had taken place between the plaintiff's family and the defendant's family before the Sagai Ceremony. First meeting had taken place at the residence of the defendants. Only one meeting had taken place at his place and other three meetings were held at residence of the defendants.
He further deposed that one meeting had taken place at Birla Mandir. In Sagai Ceremony, his father incurred expenses of about Rs.1 lac including the giving of Vidai to all the members of the family of the defendant. Besides this no other amount was given to the family of the defendant. He further deposed that approximately four meetings had taken place after the sagai ceremony between the plaintiff's and CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally signed by No. 13 of 25 PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 16:59:56 +0530 defendant's family, out of which 2-3 were held at the residence of the defendant and one was held at the residence of one of the relative of the defendant at Shakar Pur, Delhi-92. The first meeting after Sagai was held at the residence of the defendant in Janaury; he again said December, 2006. The meeting had taken place for consulting the articles to be gifted and arranging the goods for marriage of his sister as per mutual understanding with the defendant. The second meeting had taken place at his residence in January, 2007 for the same purpose. Third meeting had taken place at the residence of defendant in which defendant's family demanded Car failing which they threatened to break the marriage. In the fourth and last meeting at Shakar Pur, defendants told them that they were not ready for the marriage. Again said only discussions were held that both the parties were to return the cash/gifts given to each other but no settlement could be reached. From the side of defendants, his sister received one gold necklace, gold ring, some fruits and some sarees. He could not tell the number of sarees. It might be correct that all these articles were still in their possession. Neither he nor his father or his sister had ever written any letter to defendants asking them to take back all the goods gifted to his sister R by the defendants. The amount of Rs. 2 lacs was given to the defendants by his father in December, 2006 at the residence of the defendants. On being confronted with the fact that in his affidavit where he had stated that a sum of Rs.2 lacs was given by his father to the family of Sandeep at the time of engagement ceremony, but during his cross examination you stated that this amount was given in December 2006, he stated that whatever he had stated in his cross examination was correct. He denied that neither his CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally signed by No. 14 of 25 PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 17:00:03 +0530 father nor any member of his family had ever given the alleged sum of Rs.2 lacs to the defendant or any of the family member of defendant no.
1. He denied that his sister had specifically asked defendant no. 1 that after marriage, she would not stay with her mother-in-law and she was insisting that defendant no. 1 should live separately from his mother. He denied that defendants ever demanded any car or sum of Rs.2 lacs. The amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was arranged from the Chit Funds by his father and the remaining amount came from the sale of one property of his father in U.P. He did not have any idea as to what amount came from Chits (Committee) and what amount came from the sale of the property in U.P. In the first meeting, his father, Mr. Krishan Murari Gupta and he were present from the side of the plaintiff. In the second meeting also same person were present and in the third meeting besides the above-
said persons, one uncle of his was present. The amount of Rs. 2.00.000/- was given in the second meeting which was held in January, 2007. After the third meeting, they got a call and again said that after second meeting, they got a call from the defendants demanding a Car. His mother had attended that call. Again said, a demand for car was raised in the third meeting when they met at the residence of the defendants. He denied that defendants never demanded any car.
21. On the other hand, defendant no. 1, appearing as DW1 deposed that on 17.11.2006, his ring ceremony with daughter of plaintiff had happened. It was a very simple ceremony in which about 20 adult members participated and necessary things were exchanged by both the parties. Defendants gave one gold necklace set with pair of gold ear rings weighing 20.670 gms which was worth Rs.20,800/- and one gold CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally signed by PARVEEN No. 15 of 25 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 17:00:09 +0530 ring weighing 4.140 gms worth Rs.4265/- to the daughter of the plaintiff. Apart from that, they also gave clothes worth Rs.5775/- which they had purchased from Arun Vastra Bhandar. Apart from that, defendants had also spent Rs.10,000/- on purchase of sweets, fruits, vanity box etc. They further spent Rs.10,000/- on video film, photographer, conveyance etc. In this way, defendants spent Rs.45,065/- on the said ceremony. The bills of purchase of jewellery were exhibited as Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2. He further deposed that plaintiff daughter, after engagement, inquired about ownership of the house in which defendants were residing. On coming to know that the house was in the name of defendant no. 2, she put a condition that he should get the house transferred in his name as she could not live with a person who did not even has a house in his name. He further deposed that she also told him that he had four daughters, defendant no. 1 would have a meager share in the property. Upon these inquiries and conduct of the plaintiff's daughter, he became frightened and apprehended that the marriage would not be successful as she had already started dictating terms. Matter was brought to the notice of the plaintiff who threatened him to face bad consequences if he did not marry with his daughter. Therefore, he requested plaintiff to take back the ring given by him during the ring ceremony and to return the jewelry presented by defendants to plaintiff's daughter. Plaintiff upon this, threatened to implicate defendants in a false dowry case. Therefore, he gave a complaint to SHO PS Tilak Nagar on 23.01.2007 and also served a legal notice dated 23.01.2007 to the plaintiff to stop threatening and harassing him and amicably settle the exchange of things. Plaintiff instead of settling the matter, sent a CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally No. 16 of 25 PARVEEN signed by PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 17:00:16 +0530 reply dated 28.01.2007 alleging that he had spent Rs.3 lacs on 17.11.2006 and alleged that marriage date had been fixed as 10.02.2007.
However, the marriage date had not been fixed. The complaint was Ex.DW1/4, legal notice was exhibited as Ex.DW1/5 and the postal receipts were exhibited as Ex.DW1/6 and Ex.DW1/7.
22. During his cross examination, he deposed that he did not remember the mobile number from which he used to call his fiancee and volunteered, that he used to call from a landline phone. On being confronted with his examination in chief where he stated that he used to call from mobile phone, he stated that he used to call from a mobile phone on a landline of his fiancee. He further deposed that the request to the plaintiff to return our goods and take back their goods was made in a meeting but he had not attended that meeting. He denied that the plaintiff had given Rs.2 lacs to him. He denied that the plaintiff had further incurred an expense of Rs.1 lac. He denied that he broke the engagement because the plaintiff did not fulfill the dowry demands.
23. I have gone through the evidence recorded above and perused the record very carefully.
24. From the evidence, it is very much clear that it is not disputed that a match was fixed between plaintiff's daughter and defendant no. 1. It is also not disputed that an engagement ceremony was held on 17.11.2006 at Hotel Solitaire, Main Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi. However, then there is a dispute with regard to the expenditure incurred on this engagement ceremony.
25. The first thing which has attracted my attention is, that plaintiff has claimed that on this ceremony, he had spent a total amount CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally signed No. 17 of 25 by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.03.28 17:00:23 +0530 of Rs.62,500/- but when the break up given by him is totaled, the amount comes to Rs.64,175/-.
26. Coming on the expenditure, it is correct that some expenditure must have been incurred at Hotel Solitaire. Plaintiff has claimed that an amount of Rs.20,500/- was spent. However, no bill or receipt of payment of this amount to the hotel has been placed on record. Neither any receipt of purchase of sweets, fruits and gifts has been filed nor what gifts were purchased has been stated. Also there is no receipt or record of the suits or sarees or dresses upon which plaintiff claimed to have spent Rs.8,000/-. The gold ring is valued at Rs.4,500/- and defendant no. 1 has admitted receiving this ring.
27. The proof of expenditure which has been placed on record is a katcha receipt of Gupta Photo Studio of Rs.3,674/-. Another is a receipt of the meeting held at Laxmi Narain Mandir where meeting was held and the receipt was for an amount of Rs.300/-. Apart from that, no other proof of expenditure has been placed on record by the plaintiff.
28. On the other hand, plaintiff has admitted that defendants had gifted a gold necklace set and a gold ring as well as sarees to his daughter which plaintiff had retained. Defendants have proved the amount spent on these articles vide receipts Ex.DW1/1, Ex.DW1/2 and Mark A.
29. Even if, mark A is disregarded as it was not proved as per Evidence Act, the amount which the defendant no. 1 has proved to have on jewellery is around Rs.25,000/-.
30. The amount spent by the plaintiff as claimed to the tune of Digitally signed by PARVEEN CS No. 611969/2016 PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 No. 18 of 25 17:00:31 +0530 Rs.62,500/- has not been proved but at the same time, what could be accepted is, that he had spent around Rs.8,000/- on gold and photography expenses and the some amount must have been spent for Hotel Solitaire where the engagement ceremony had held but it is apparent that both the parties had spent money and had retained each other's articles.
31. This brings me to the claim of the plaintiff of a payment of Rs.2 lacs to defendants and I find that plaintiff has absolutely failed to prove this claim.
32. I say so because the plaintiff in his plaint has claimed that an amount of Rs.2 lacs was paid at the time of engagement i.e. on 17.11.2006. However, during his cross examination, he deposed that this amount was paid after the engagement in a meeting held in January 2007 where they were told by the defendants that the articles proposed to be gifted to his daughter could be purchased by them at a cheaper price and so he gave Rs.2 lacs to them and very clearly stated that he gave Rs.2 lacs to the defendants at their residence. When he was confronted with his testimony where he had stated that this money was given at the time of engagement, he deposed that he had offered this money to the defendants in engagement but defendants did not accept the same.
33. I fail to understand how he could have offered this money in engagement when this amount was only quantified in the meeting of January 2007, as claimed by the plaintiff in his cross examination. He does not stop here. At a subsequent stage of his cross examination, he stated that after the engagement, there were two meetings between the CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally signed by No. 19 of 25 PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 17:00:37 +0530 plaintiff and the defendants. The first had happened in December 2006 when he had handed over Rs.2 lacs to the defendant no. 2.
34. So now according to the plaintiff, three different dates are emerging when this amount of Rs. 2 lacs was paid to the defendants i.e. one is the date of engagement, second in January 2007 and third in December 2006. Thus, his testimony on this amount is completely unbelievable.
35. This brings me to the second witness Krishan Murari Gupta. This witness also deposed that that the amount of Rs.2 lacs was paid in his presence.
36. During his cross examination, he deposed that after the engagement ceremony, Rs.2 lacs was given to defendant no. 2 at her house but he did not remember the date, month or year. He then stated that it was given in the presence of Ram Dass Gupta and then again said that Ram Dass was not present and only plaintiff, his son and he were present.
37. The third witness Amit Gupta is the son of plaintiff and he also deposed on the lines of the plaintiff and stated in his examination in chief that money was paid at the time of engagement ceremony but during his cross examination, he deposed that the amount of Rs.2 lacs was given to the defendants by his father in December 2006 at the residence of defendants and then at later stage, he went on to depose that this amount was given in the second meeting which was held in January 2007. However, according to his earlier cross examination, the second meeting had taken place at his residence in January 2007 and therefore, in this meeting, money could not have been paid to the defendants at the CS No. 611969/2016 No. 20 of 25 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 17:00:44 +0530 house of defendants.
38. Therefore from these contradictory and flip-flopping stands of the witnesses regarding when the payment was made, I find that by preponderance of probabilities, plaintiff has failed to prove the payment of Rs.2 lacs.
39. This brings me to the expenditure incurred by the plaintiff on the arrangement of marriage ceremony. Invitation card had been proved as Ex.PW1/A and if it had been proved, expenses must have been incurred but at the same time, no bill reflecting how much payment was made has been placed on record. The amount spent on booking of community hall has not been proved because the original receipt of booking of the hall was not produced and the receipt which was originally exhibited as Ex.PW1/C was marked as Mark A. However, the plaintiff, if he was not in possession of the original receipt, could have summoned the record from MCD to prove the money spent on booking of community hall but plaintiff failed to do so. Plaintiff has also failed to prove the expenses incurred on the purchase of fruits, sweets, gifts and the amount spent on purchase of suits and sarees. Plaintiff has also failed to prove the expenses incurred on the photography and catering etc.
40. Before proceeding further, it is also needed to decide, whether it was the defendants who had broken the marriage on the failure of the plaintiff to fulfill their dowry demand because, only if the defendants were at fault that the plaintiff would be entitled to the amount.
41. The claim of the plaintiff is that on 13.01.2007, defendant no. 2 gave him a call and urgently summoned him at her house. The very CS No. 611969/2016 No. 21 of 25 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 17:00:50 +0530 next date he alongwith PW2 and PW3 went to the house of defendants where defendant no. 2 stated that defendant no. 1 was demanding a car for dowry and if plaintiff failed to fulfill the said demand, the engagement would be broken. He deposed on these lines and during his cross examination, he had deposed that in all, three meetings had taken place between them and the defendants. The first one was at Birla Mandir, the second was at the residence of defendants and last one was at his residence. The he again said that they had also gone to the residence of the defendants when they were telephonically informed that defendant no. 1 was not ready for the alliance.
42. If his cross examination is looked at, the first meeting after the engagement ceremony on 17.11.2006, according to him, had happened at the house of the defendants in January 2007. The second meeting had happened at his house where it was discussed that instead of giving utensils and other items, defendants should be given Rs.2 lacs. The first meeting had happened at Birla Mandir. So it could be the fourth meeting at the residence of the defendants that the demand of car in dowry could have been raised.
43. On the one hand, plaintiff stated in his examination in chief that he was urgently summoned at the house of the defendants without assigning any reasons and to the contrary, during his cross examination, he stated that on the phone, he was informed that defendant no. 1 was not ready for marriage.
44. The second witness also deposed on the same lines that on 13.01.2007, he was called by the plaintiff. Plaintiff informed him that he was called by defendant no. 2 at her residence. The very next day, he CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally No. 22 of 25 PARVEEN signed by PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 17:00:57 +0530 alongwith plaintiff and his son had gone to the house of defendants where defendant no. 2 refused to marry her son unless, the plaintiff gave a car to the defendant no. 1 in the marriage.
45. However, during his cross examination, he deposed that he did not know the date, month or year when the demand of car was made but stated that the demand of car was made in his presence and at that time, plaintiff and his son were present and that the demand of car was made on phone.
46. If that be the case, the demand of car could not have been made at the residence of the defendants as there would be no occasion for the defendants to make a demand through phone to the person who was present in their own house.
47. Similarly, PW3 deposed on the same lines as of the plaintiff and then in his cross examination, he deposed that they had got a call from the defendants demanding a car and his mother had received that call. Though he immediately again said that the demand of car was raised in the third meeting when they went at the residence of the defendants.
48. Coupled with these contradictions in the cross examination of the witnesses are the surrounding circumstances for filing the present suit, before the plaintiff could initiate any action criminal or civil against the defendants, defendant no. 1 already filed a police complaint alleging that they were being harassed and threatened to be falsely implicated.
Defendant no.1 had already issued a legal notice reiterating what he has claimed in his written statement and it is only thereafter, that the plaintiff replied the legal notice with his claims and had filed a police CS No. 611969/2016 No. 23 of 25 Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 17:01:02 +0530 complaint.
49. If there actually had been a dowry demand and the defendant had already called of the marriage and had refused to return their articles, it is unfathomable and highly improbable that plaintiff would have waited for the defendants to first initiate any action and only thereafter he would start the legal action.
50. Therefore, I find that by preponderance of probabilities, it has not been established that defendants had demanded car in dowry and when this demand was not fulfilled, marriage was called off. At the same time, defendants have also failed in proving the claim made by them because apart from the bald oral testimony of DW1, which also has contradictions, he has not brought anything on record to substantiate his claim that it was because of the conduct of the plaintiff's daughter that marriage had to be called off.
51. However, it was still for the plaintiff to prove that the defendants had called off the marriage as their dowry demand was not fulfilled.
52. Therefore, what has emerged from the above discussion is, that: firstly, except the receipt of photographer and the fact that plaintiff had given a gold ring to the defendant no. 1, plaintiff has failed to prove the expenditure which he claimed to have incurred at the time of engagement. Secondly, the plaintiff himself is holding on to the gold necklace set and ring given to his daughter by the defendants. Thirdly, plaintiff has failed to prove that he had paid Rs.2 lacs to the defendant as claimed by him. Fourthly, plaintiff has failed to prove any expenditure incurred for the preparation of marriage. Fifthly, plaintiff has failed to CS No. 611969/2016 Digitally No. 24 of 25 PARVEEN signed by PARVEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.28 17:01:08 +0530 prove that defendants had raised a dowry demand of car and on non fulfillment of this demand, they called off the marriage.
53. In these circumstances, I find that by preponderance of probabilities, plaintiff has failed to prove his entitlement of Rs.3,06,485/-.
54. As the plaintiff has failed to prove his entitlement to receive any money from defendants, there is no question of awarding any interest. Both the issues are accordingly decided against the plaintiff.ISSUE NO. 3
3. Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
55. The onus to prove this issue on the defendants. However, no arguments have been advanced on this issue and did not lead any evidence. This issue is accordingly decided. RELIEF
56. In view of my above findings, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by PARVEEN PARVEEN SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.03.28 17:01:15 +0530 Announced in the open court (PARVEEN SINGH) on 28.03.2025. DJ-11, Central District, (This judgment contains 25 pages and Tis Hazari Court, Delhi each page bears my signature.) CS No. 611969/2016 No. 25 of 25