Delhi District Court
Seema Aggarwal vs Pawan Kumar Tayal on 8 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-I
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSH01-001910-2019
CS No. 272/2019
Smt. Seema Aggarwal
W/o Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal
R/o H.No. 461, 1st Floor
Pathan Pura, Shahdara
Delhi - 110032 .........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Sh. Pawan Kumar Tayal
S/o Sh. Trilok Chand Tayal
2. Smt. Hemlata Tayal
W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Tayal
Both R/o H. No.9/75
Bagichi Gali, Vishwas Nagar
Delhi - 110032 .....DEFENDANTS
Date of Filing : 22.03.2019
Date of Arguments : 04.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 08.10.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.4,50,000/- (RUPEES FOUR
LACS FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY)
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 24% per annum.
2. Facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that defendants had taken a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from plaintiff on CS No. 272/2019 Seema Aggarwal vs Pawan Kr. Tayal & Anr. Page 1 of 10 Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.10.08 14:32:23 +0530 15.03.2007 and against the said payment as security, defendant let out the first floor of property bearing no. 6/6, Street No. 5, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi to the plaintiff with condition that defendant would return back the said security amount as and when plaintiff vacates the said premises. It was alleged that while plaintiff was residing in the said property, defendant sold the said property and purchased property no. 461, Pathanpura, Shahdara, Delhi. It was alleged that defendant took a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for purchasing the said property and assured the plaintiff that he would return the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and would take back the possession of the property from the plaintiff. It was further alleged that defendant avoided the terms and conditions of said payment and filed a petition seeking possession of said property before Ld. Senior Civil Judge/RC, Shahdara District.
3. It has further been alleged that when plaintiff demanded the amount from the defendants, defendants avoided making payment of the said amount. Thereafter, plaintiff sent a demand notice dated 21.02.2019 demanding amount of Rs.4,50,000/- but defendant neither replied the said legal notice nor paid the amount to the plaintiff. It has been alleged that he was served with the summons of the eviction petition on 16.12.2016 and hence, cause of action arose on 16.12.2016 and also when defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount despite being demanded by the plaintiff and despite service of legal notice. Hence, the present suit.
CS No. 272/2019 Seema Aggarwal vs Pawan Kr. Tayal & Anr. Page 2 of 10 Digitally signedSANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.10.08 14:32:29 +0530
4. The summons of the suit were served upon defendants. Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement wherein defendants raised preliminary objection that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable being barred by limitation as the present suit has been filed for recovery of amount alleged to have been given by plaintiff to defendants vide Money Agreement executed between them on 15.03.2007 and 05.03.2012. It has further been averred that plaintiff has not disclosed the mode of payment of alleged amount and any amount over and above the permissible limit can be paid only by cheque. Further, it has been averred that the alleged money agreements are neither in the handwriting of defendant no. 1 nor it bears his signatures and hence, plaintiff has committed forgery.
4.1 On merits, it is averred that the eviction petition has already been withdrawn by the defendant on technical grounds on 26.03.2019. It is further averred that the legal notice dated 21.02.2019 sent by plaintiff was duly replied by the defendants vide reply dated 28.03.2019. Other contents of the plaint were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.
5. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the written statement, wherein he has reiterated the contents of his plaint.
6. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 29.07.2021:-
CS No. 272/2019 Seema Aggarwal vs Pawan Kr. Tayal & Anr. Page 3 of 10 Digitally signed by SANJAYSANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.10.08 14:32:35 +0530
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.4,50,000/- as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the said amount and if so, to what extent and for what period? (OPP)
3. Relief
7. In support of her case, plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. She relied upon the following documents i.e. Legal notice dated 21.09.2019 alongwith original postal receipt as Ex.PW1/A(colly).
Copy of agreements dated 15.03.2007 and 05.03.2012 as Ex.PW1/B(colly)(OSR).
7.1 Plaintiff also examined Shri Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal as PW2 and Smt. Anita as PW3 who tendered their evidence by way of affidavits Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW3/1. They also relied upon the documents already relied upon by PW1. They were cross examined on behalf of the defendants and plaintiff's evidence was closed.
8. Defendant examined herself as DW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/1 and relied upon the documents as under:-
Copy of sale deed dated 23.04.12 as Ex.DW1/A (OSR) Copy of site plan of tenanted premises as Ex.DW1/B(OSR) CS No. 272/2019 Seema Aggarwal vs Pawan Kr. Tayal & Anr. Page 4 of 10 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.10.08 14:32:42 +0530 8.1 Defendant also examined Shri Pawan Kumar Tayal as DW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/1 and relied upon documents already relied upon by DW1.
9. I have heard Shri Madan Lal Thakur - Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, Shri Gajender Singh - Ld. Counsel for defendant and have perused the record carefully.
My findings on the issues are as under: -
Issue No.1 & 21. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.4,50,000/- as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the said amount and if so, to what extent and for what period? (OPP) (Issue No.1 and 2 are being taken together being interconnected).
10. The defendant has taken a preliminary objection in his written statement that the present suit is barred by limitation.
This contention has to be decided at the threshold.
11. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 22.3.2019. As per the admitted facts stated in the plaint, the first amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff on 15.3.2007, as security, against which he let out the first floor of property bearing No. 6/6, Street No. 5, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi, with a condition that the said amount would be CS No. 272/2019 Seema Aggarwal vs Pawan Kr. Tayal & Anr. Page 5 of 10 Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.10.08 14:32:47 +0530 returned by the defendant as and when the plaintiff vacates the said premises.
12. It is pleaded in the plaint that on 23.4.2012, the defendant purchased another property bearing No. 461, Pathanpura, Shahdara Delhi and again took Rs.2 lacs from the plaintiff in order to purchase the said property. On the same day, the defendant got vacated property bearing No. 6/6, Street No. 5, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi from the plaintiff and put her in possession of the ground floor of the newly purchased property No. 461, Pathanpura, Shahdara Delhi. The entire amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was treated as security and it was agreed that when he would have arrangement to repay the said amount, he would give one month time to the plaintiff to vacate the said property. Both the transactions were reduced into writing, the first on 15.3.2007 and the second on 05.3.2012 and have been relied upon by the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/B and PW1/B1 and both bearing the signatures of the defendant.
13. The first Agreement Ex.PW1/B came to an end when the plaintiff vacated the first property bearing No. 6/6, Gali No. 5, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi and paid another amount of Rs.2 lacs under Agreement Ex.PW1/B1 dated 05.3.2012. The amount paid under the first agreement of Rs.2,50,000/- was merged in the second Agreement Ex.PW1/B1 and the total amount payable by the defendant became Rs.4,50,000/- which was treated as security, to be paid by the defendant when he could arrange for CS No. 272/2019 Seema Aggarwal vs Pawan Kr. Tayal & Anr. Page 6 of 10 Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.10.08 14:32:53 +0530 the said amount and the plaintiff would vacate the second property No. 461, Pathanpura, Shahdara Delhi.
14. In terms of the contents of the second Agreement Ex.PW1/B1, the entire amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was to be repaid by the defendant when he could arrange for the money and in the event of the plaintiff vacating the house and till then the plaintiff was to pay interest on the second amount of Rs.2 lacs @ 1.50% p.m. There is nothing on record to suggest that the defendant ever offered the plaintiff to pay the said amount or asked her to vacate his property. It is also a matter of record that the defendant filed an eviction petition against the plaintiff on the ground of Bonafide Requirement, bearing Eviction Petition No. 1120/2016 titled Hemlata Tayal vs. Rajesh Garg but the same was withdrawn by her on technical grounds on 26.3.2019. Since the plaintiff is still enjoying the property of the defendant without paying any rent but has claimed the amount given by her to the defendant which claim is against the agreements relied upon by her, as aforesaid, the suit amount can at best be treated as loan advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant.
15. According to Article 19 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for filing a suit for recovery of money lent is three years from the date when the loan is made. Similarly, under Article 21 of the said Schedule, a suit for recovery of money lent under an Agreement that it shall be payable on demand is also three years from the date when the CS No. 272/2019 Seema Aggarwal vs Pawan Kr. Tayal & Anr. Page 7 of 10 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.10.08 14:32:59 +0530 loan is made. Even if the amount claimed is treated as a security, Article 42 of the said Schedule provides that a suit by a surety against the principal debtor can be filed within three years when the surety pays the creditor. Thus, in all the three cases, the limitation for filing the suit for recovery of the suit amount would have commenced at the most from the date of the second agreement, i.e. 05.3.2012. The present suit having been filed on 22.3.2019 is therefore, grossly barred by limitation by four years.
16. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that he had served a legal notice on 21.02.2019, demanding the due amount upon the defendant which was duly served and therefore, fresh cause of action would arise from the date of the said notice. This argument is totally misconceived as limitation period cannot be enhanced by giving a legal notice. This view is fortified in the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
17. In M/s RAKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs. M/S SUMAJA ELECTRO INFRA PRIVATE LTD, RFA(COMM) 8/2022 delivered on: 09.11.2022, it was held that "It is also equally well settled that merely sending a legal notice to repay the amount does not assist the plaintiff for the purpose of calculation of the period of limitation."
18. Similarly, in GREATECH FASHIONS Vs. SK Industries, RFA(COMM) 323/2025 dated 27.5.2025, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under :
CS No. 272/2019 Seema Aggarwal vs Pawan Kr. Tayal & Anr. Page 8 of 10 Digitally signed by SANJAYSANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.10.08 14:33:05 +0530 "The period of limitation can be extended only under certain circumstances as mentioned in the Limitation Act, 1963, one of them being a written acknowledgment of the debt or a part payment made within the period of limitation. None of those circumstances are made out by the appellant in the present case. Equally, the issuance of a legal notice does not lead to the commencement of a fresh period of limitation."
19. There is no provision in law to condone the limitation period in filing of a suit and therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the present suit is barred by limitation and therefore, not maintainable in the eyes of law.
20. On merits as well, the plaintiff has not been able to prove the transactions. She allegedly paid Rs.4,50,000/- in two parts but has nowhere pleaded or deposed as to how and from where she arranged for the said amount. In her cross- examination, she deposed that she is a housewife and has no earnings of her own and that the amount was given to the defendant in cash. Thus, there is absolute silence on part of the plaintiff as to from where this huge amount came to her.
21. It was also deposed by the plaintiff that the agreement dated 15.3.2007 does not bear her signatures and was signed by her brother-in-law who has since expired. The defendant has denied his signatures on the said Agreement as also the second Agreement dated 05.3.2012. DW1/defendant no. 2 in her cross-examination denied the signatures of her husband CS No. 272/2019 Seema Aggarwal vs Pawan Kr. Tayal & Anr. Page 9 of 10 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.10.08 14:33:11 +0530 on both the Agreements but thereafter, there was neither any further cross-examination nor any suggestion was given to her that she is falsely denying the signatures of her husband on the said Agreements. Thus, the said Agreement could also not be proved as per law.
22. Apart from that, since the plaintiff is still in occupation of the property of the defendant, she cannot claim the suit amount unless she vacates it even if the said Agreement Ex.PW1/B1 is assumed to be correct. Hence, even on merits, the plaintiff has not been able to prove her case. Both these issues are, therefore, decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3/RELIEF
23. In view of the findings on the above Issues, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief, as prayed for. The present suit is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court SANJAY by Digitally signed SANJAY SHARMA today on 08th October 2025 SHARMA Date: 2025.10.08 14:33:17 +0530 (Sanjay Sharma-I) Principal District & Sessions Judge District Shahdara Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS No. 272/2019 Seema Aggarwal vs Pawan Kr. Tayal & Anr. Page 10 of 10