Delhi District Court
Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Leela Devi And Ors on 1 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMEET ANAND,
DISTRICT JUDGE-11, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
CS DJ No.20916/2016
CNR No. DLCT01-016771-2016
Sh. Arun Kumar Nirwan
S/o Late Sh. N. D. Nirwan
R/o J-8, Second Floor,
Pratap Nagar,
New Delhi-110007
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Leela Devi W/o Late Sh. Dungar Singh
2. Sh. Mohan S/o Late Sh. Dungar Singh
3. Sh. Tulsi S/o Late Sh. Dungar Singh
4. Sh. Pradip (Now deceased),
Through LRs;-
(i) Smt. Leela Devi
(ii) Vimla
(iii) Pallavi
(iv) Dolly
(v) Deepu
5. Sh. Mahender S/o Late Sh. Dungar Singh
All R/o H. No.11876, Gali No.10, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
.....Defendants
Date of Filing : 26.11.2016
Date of Arguments : 13.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 01.09.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.5,90,000/-(RUPEES FIVE
LACS NINETY THOUSAND ONLY)
CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556
Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 1 of 17
Digitally
signed by
SUMEET
SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2025.09.02
15:34:28
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff, namely Arun Kumar Nirwan has approached this court through the present civil suit seeking recovery of Rs.5,90,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Ninety Thousand Only) alongwith interest pendentelite and future interest till its realization @ 18% per annum. The plaintiff is seeking decree in his favour and against the defendants jointly and severally alongwith cost.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the late husband of the defendant no.1, who is also late father of other defendants was the owner/landlord of property bearing no.11876, Gali no.10, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi; in which he had let out a two room set on the 2nd floor portion of the said property to the plaintiff, on 23.03.2022, vide rent agreement/security agreement dated 23.03.2012.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that as per the said rent/security agreement, the tenancy was for a period of 22 months w.e.f. 01.03.2012 to 31.12.2013. And, as per the agreement, the owner/landlord, Late Dungar Singh received a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- as a security amount from the plaintiff on the written understanding that no rent shall be charged from the plaintiff for the premises let out to him; and the security amount so deposited by the plaintiff shall be refundable to him, without any interest accrued thereon, upon vacating of the premises.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the landlord/owner of the property, namely Dungar Singh expired on 16.12.2012. Plaintiff also contends, that, after entering into rent/security CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556 Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 2 of 17 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2025.09.02 15:35:53 +0530 agreement, he, alongwith his wife, two sons and one daughter namely Monika started residing at the tenanted premises.
5. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 02.07.2014, the plaintiff alongwith his wife and his two sons left the tenanted premises on account of harassment caused by his daughter Monika to them; as Monika lodged a false FIR/criminal complaint against the plaintiff, his wife and one of his son under Section 354 IPC.
6. Accordingly, it is the case of the plaintiff that from 02.07.2014 onwards, only the daughter of the plaintiff Ms. Monika, after taking permission from the court of Ld. MM, Tis Hazari, continued to live in the said tenanted premises.
7. It is also the case of the plaintiff, that although he alongwith is wife and sons had left the tenanted premises on 02.07.2014, but, his goods, and goods of his wife and sons remained lying in the tenanted premises. On this basis, the plaintiff claims that he continued to be in the constructive possession of the tenanted premises.
8. It is also the case of the plaintiff that as his goods were lying in the tenanted premises, he filed a list of his goods lying in the tenanted premises with the court of Ld. MM and also, mentioned the same in the complaint made to the local police i.e. PS Prasad Nagar.
9. It is also the case of the plaintiff that despite the expiry of the time period of the security agreement for the tenanted premises on 31.12.2013, the defendants never demanded the vacant possession of the tenanted premises from CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556 Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 3 of 17 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2025.09.02 15:36:08 +0530 the plaintiff, and accordingly, the plaintiff never demanded his security amount of Rs.5,30,000/- from the defendants.
10. It is the case as well as grievance of the plaintiff that on 28.04.2015, the defendants illegally and forcibly obtained 'Surrender of Tenancy Agreement' and 'receipt' of Rs.5,30,000/- from the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that due to illegal and forcible act of the defendants, he went under a shock and after recovering from the said shock on 14.07.2015, he filed a written complaint dated 14.07.2016 with the local police at PS Prasad Nagar; and sent a copy of the complaint to Secretary, Revenue, Income Tax Department, North Avenue, New Delhi.
11. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 21.07.2015 and on 15.09.2015, the defendant no.3; and also on 24.07.2015, the defendant no.2 talked with the plaintiff on his mobile phone; and the conversation recorded in a memory card, and the transcript of the same which have been placed on record by the plaintiff, reveal that no security amount was refunded by the defendants to the plaintiff.
12. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 herein also filed a civil suit bearing no.168/2015 against the plaintiff and his daughter Monika seeking possession of the tenanted premises alongwith relief of permanent injunction, damages and mesne profits.
13. It is the case of the plaintiff that he and his daughter for contesting the said suit filed their respective Written Statement; and in the said suit, vide order dated 16.03.2016, the Ld. ADJ Court was pleased to refrain the plaintiff (defendant's CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556 Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 4 of 17 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2025.09.02 15:36:28 +0530 herein) from dispossessing the daughter of the plaintiff Monika from the suit property without due process of law.
14. It is the case of the plaintiff and his grievance that in utter disregard of the said stay order dated 16.03.2016, the daughter of the plaintiff was forcefully dispossessed from the tenanted premises, and consequently, the constructive possession of the plaintiff over the tenanted premises was also brought to an end illegally.
15. It is the case of the plaintiff that upon being forcefully dispossessed from the suit property, his daughter, namely Monika lodged an FIR no.202 dated 21.03.2016 against the defendants at PS Prasad Nagar. Moreover, the plaintiff and his daughter also filed separate contempt petition's in Suit no.618/15 in which interim protection was given to the daughter of plaintiff Monika to reside in the tenanted premises.
16. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 04.11.2016, the suits filed by the defendants herein bearing suit no.618/2015 in which they were seeking the possession of the tenanted premises from Monika was dismissed in default for non- prosecution. Further, the contempt petition filed by his daughter Monika in the said suit was also dismissed for non-prosecution.
17. It is the case and the grievance of the plaintiff that he has been wrongfully ousted from the tenanted premises, but as per the rent/security agreement, the security deposit for a sum of Rs.5,30,000/-, deposited by him at the time of taking the property on rent has not been returned to him. Hence, the present suit.
18. At this juncture, this court deems it appropriate and expedient to mention the prayer made by the plaintiff in the CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556 Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 5 of 17 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2025.09.02 15:36:38 +0530 present suit. It reads that, "It is , therefore, most respectfully prayed that a decree may kindly be passed in the sum of Rs.5,90,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Ninety Thousand only) alongwith interest pendentelite and future till realization at the rate of 18% per annum, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally, alongwith costs, in the interest of justice ".
19. The present suit for recovery of money was instituted by the plaintiff on 26.11.2016. The defendants, in answer to the summons issued to them for settlement of issues entered appearance and filed their Written Statements. The plaintiff also filed his replication.
20. Based on the pleadings of the parties, and the documents filed and relied upon by the parties, following issues were framed on 24.05.2017 for trial; viz.
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.5,90,000/- i.e. security amount (including interest @ 18% p.a.) as prayed for by the plaintiff in the plaint? OPP
ii) Whether the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands? OPD
iii) Relief.
21. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. Except for himself, the plaintiff did not examine any other witness in support of his case. In his evidence by way of affidavit, the plaintiff filed and relied upon the following documents; viz.
Sr. No. Exhibit Document
i. Ex.PW1/A Evidence by way of affidavit of PW-1
(Arun Kumar Nirwan).
CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556
Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 6 of 17
Digitally
signed by
SUMEET
SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2025.09.02
15:36:58
+0530
ii. Ex.PW1/1 Certificate under Section 65 of Evidence Act.
iii. Ex.PW1/2 Original memory card.
iv. Ex.PW1/3 Hindi version translation of plaintiff and & defendant no.3 dated 21.07.2015 & Ex.PW1/4 15.09.2015.
v. Ex.PW1/5 Certified copy of security agreement dated 23.03.2012.
vi. Ex.PW1/6 Certified copy of police complaint dated 14.07.2015.
vii. Ex.PW1/7 Certified copy of speed post receipt dated 20.07.2015.
viii. Ex.PW1/8 Certified copy of tracking report dated 20.07.2015.
ix. Ex.PW1/9 Certified copy of order dated 24.01.2015. x. Ex.PW1/10 Certified copy of statement of Sh. Surinder Jain, Advocate dated 24.11.2015.
xi. Ex.PW1/11 Certified copy of statement of Ms. Monika dated 24.11.2015.
xii. Ex.PW1/12 Certified copy of order dated 16.03.2016.
xiii. Ex.PW1/13 Certified copy of FIR no.202 dated 21.03.2016.
xiv. Ex.PW1/14 Certified copy of police complaint dated 26.03.2016.
xv. Ex.PW1/15 Certified copy of order dated 02.07.2014 in CC no.58/6/14.
xvi. Ex.PW1/16 Certified copy of police complaint dated 02.07.2014.
xvii. Ex.PW1/17 Certified copy of police complaint dated 18.07.2014 made by Mrs. Leela Devi.
xviii.Ex.PW1/18 Certified copy of affidavit of plaintiff dated 04.07.2014.
xix. Ex.PW1/19 Certified copy of speed post receipt dated 27.03.2016.
CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556
Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 7 of 17
Digitally
signed by
SUMEET
SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2025.09.02
15:37:11
+0530
xx. Ex.PW1/20 Certified copy of tracking report of Indian post dated 27.03.2016.
xxi. Ex.PW1/21 Certified copy of hand written receipt of Rs.30,000/- in addition to security amount of Rs.5,30,000/- by Sh. Dungar Singh dated 15.04.2012.
xxii. Ex.PW1/26 Certified copy of plaint with affidavit dated 14.09.2015 in Suit no.168/2015.
xxiii.Ex.PW1/27 Certified copy of written statement with affidavit filed by Sh. Arun Kumar Nirwan. xxiv. Ex.PW1/28 Certified copies of order dated 04.11.2016.
(colly) xxv. Ex.PW1/22 to Ex.PW1/25-Were de-exhibited being already exhibited as Ex.PW1/9 to Ex.PW1/12.
22. Further, in support of their defence, the defendants examined defendant no.1 Leela Devi as DW-1. Although, evidence affidavits of other defendants were filed on record, but, they were not examined. The defendant no.1 filed and relied upon the following documents; viz.
i. Ex.D1-Payment receipt.
23. This court has heard the rival contentions of the contesting parties and has gone through the record carefully.
24. Issue-wise findings of this court are as under:-
ISSUE No.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.5,90,000/- i.e. security amount (including interest @ 18% p.a.) as prayed for by the plaintiff in the plaint? OPP
25. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the rent/security agreement dated 31.12.2013 entered into between the plaintiff and the husband of defendant no.1, who is also father of other defendants is not disputed. It is an admitted position of CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556 Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 8 of 17 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2025.09.02 15:38:00 +0530 fact that in terms of the said agreement, the plaintiff obtained possession of the tenanted premises.
26. Both the parties are relying on the agreement dated 31.12.2013. Accordingly, the terms of the said agreement are undisputed and binding on both the parties.
27. It is not in dispute that as per the terms of the said agreement, the plaintiff, at the time of taking of possession of the tenanted premises made a security payment of Rs.5,30,000/- to the defendants. However, the only bone of contention between the parties, which requires adjudication by this court, is that the plaintiff claims that despite he has been dispossessed of the tenanted premises, which now stand vacated, the defendants have not refunded his security deposit, but, on 28.04.2015, have illegally and forcibly obtained 'Surrender of Tenancy Agreement' from him alongwith 'receipt' of Rs.5,30,000/-.
28. Per contra, the defendants contend that at the time, when the plaintiff voluntarily and willfully vacated the premises, he executed the 'Surrender of Tenancy Agreement' and issued 'receipt' of receiving of Rs.5,30,000/- as per the terms of the agreement.
29. From the contents of the averments made in the plaint, it is clear, that it is the case of the plaintiff that indeed the 'Surrender of Tenancy Agreement' was made and 'receipt' of Rs.5,30,000/- was issued by him. However, he claims that the said documents were procured by the defendants illegally and forcibly.
30. However, as per the prayer made by the plaintiff, as has been reproduced hereinabove, it is manifest that the plaintiff CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556 Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 9 of 17 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2025.09.02 15:38:21 +0530 has not sought cancellation of 'Surrender of Tenancy Agreement', or the 'receipt' of Rs.5,30,000/-. As such, there is no formal/legal challenge to these two documents by the plaintiff.
31. Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, specifically deals with 'Cancellation of Instruments'. It provides that, "Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may in its discretion, so adjudged and order it to be delivered up and cancelled".
32. Where a party alleges that a document is voidable, as the plaintiff pleads herein in this case, as he contends that the 'receipt' and the 'Surrender of Tenancy Agreement' were obtained from him under force and were executed under duress, then, such party may seek cancellation of the said document in terms of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act. However, until the cancellation of the alleged void or voidable document is sought, and is not granted by the court in exercise of its discretion, till then, the document remains legally binding and operative.
33. A court cannot presume a document to be voidable and invalid merely because some allegations are made regarding its execution under duress. Unless the party alleging the document/instrument to be void or voidable, proves before the court the facts and circumstances under which it was made, which reflect that the document was prepared under duress, or by fraud, or by misrepresentation; and based on the evidence led the document is not declared invalid and consequently cancalled, till CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556 Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 10 of 17 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2025.09.02 15:39:46 +0530 then, the adverse party as well as the courts have to attach such validity to these documents as they deserve under law as other regular documents.
34. In Prem Singh vs Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a voidable document remains effective until set asided. Further, in Suhrid Singh vs Randhir Singh (2010) 12 SCC 112, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the executant of a document challenges it, then he must seek cancellation of the document under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, otherwise, the document stands good in the eyes of law.
35. Accordingly, mere pleadings in the plaint regarding the voidability of a document without specifically seeking consequential relief of cancellation of the voidable document is not enough to invalidate the document.
36. In the case at hand, the plaintiff has vaguely stated that the 'Surrender of Tenancy Agreement' and the 'receipt' of Rs.5,30,000/- were obtained by the defendants from the plaintiff on 28.04.2015 illegally and forcibly. Thus, the plaintiff alleges that both these documents are voidable. However, the plaintiff has failed to seek the consequential relief for cancellation of these documents, which if left outstanding, as per him may cause him serious injury.
37. Further, it is fairly settled as mandated by the statutes, and as opined by Hon'ble Superior Courts in various judgments that merely stating that the document is voidable is not enough; and the party alleging the document to be voidable must lay down categorically and specifically the facts and CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556 Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 11 of 17 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2025.09.02 15:39:59 +0530 circumstances which go on to reflect the scenarios under which the said document was executed.
38. With respect to a document allegedly obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or obtained forcefully and under duress, it is not sufficient for the party to merely state that the document was obtained either by force, fraud or misrepresentation. It is incumbent upon the party alleging the voidability of the document to enumerate the circumstances which show that the force or duress existed at the time when the document was executed.
39. Thus, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to first aver in his plaint, and then prove during the course of trial, that, what were the circumstances which constituted the illegality, and which constituted force by which the defendants obtained the 'Surrender of Tenancy Agreement' and 'receipt' of Rs.5,30,000/- from the plaintiff. It was incumbent on the plaintiff to first aver in the plaint, and then during the trial prove that from and what kind of force was used by the defendants to make him sign these documents, whether he was beaten, or put under any instant threat of life, or blackmailed etc. But no such averments have been made by the plaintiff, let alone the question of their proof.
40. The entire plaint of the plaintiff, except for bald use of words like illegally and forcibly, does not anywhere enumerate the facts and circumstances which even remotely would assists this court to determine the existence of duress/force compelling the plaintiff to sign the 'Surrender of Tenancy Agreement' and 'receipt' of Rs.5,30,000/-.
CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556
Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 12 of 17
Digitally
signed by
SUMEET
SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2025.09.02
15:40:08
+0530
41. Accordingly, in the absence of facts reflecting duress, at the time of execution of 'Surrender of Tenancy Agreement' and 'receipt' of Rs.5,30,000/-, this court cannot presume existence of any such scenarios, but, the court can very well presume the non-existence of such scenarios.
42. Accordingly, the receipt of Rs.5,30,000/- i.e. Ex.D1, which is admitted to have been executed by the plaintiff, in the absence of proof of existence of duress, and in the absence of consequential relief of cancellation having been sought by the plaintiff deserves to be considered as duly executed and deserves to be given due weightage it deserves under law. Being admitted document by the parties, the non filing and proof of Ex.D1 in original also does not make any difference.
43. Furthermore, Section 91 of Indian Evidence Act (now Section 94 BSA, 2023) reads as under:-
"When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no [evidence] [Where, however, a Criminal Court finds that a confession or other statement of an accused person has not been recorded in the manner prescribed, evidence may be taken that the recorded statement was duly made-see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 463.] shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained."
CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556
Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 13 of 17
Digitally
signed by
SUMEET
SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2025.09.02
15:40:18
+0530
44. Furthermore, Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (now Section 95 BSA, 2003) provides for, exclusion of Evidence of oral agreement;
"When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of the document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from, its terms.
Proviso (1). -- Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, 1[want or failure] of consideration, or mistake in fact or law. Proviso (2). -- The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document. Proviso (3). -- The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved. Proviso (4). -- The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents. Proviso (5). Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved:
CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556
Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 14 of 17
Digitally
signed by
SUMEET
SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2025.09.02
15:40:31
+0530
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract.
Proviso (6). -- Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts."
45. Accordingly, the moment, document Ex.D1 i.e. the payment receipt of Rs.5,30,000/- was prepared and in lieu of the same, the possession of the property was handed over back, a contract was constituted having been reduced to the form of a document. Therefore, no evidence can be led with respect to the terms of the contract reduced into the form of a document, except the document itself.
46. Section 91 bars oral evidence with respect to the facts that contradict, vary, add or subtract from the terms of the contract reduced into writing. However, this Section is appended with provisos permitting leading of oral evidence to prove the real intent, or purpose of the terms of the contract reduced into writing. However, the plaintiff, despite opportunity, during the course of the trial, has not availed benefit of any of the provisos appended to Section 91. No evidence whatsoever, has been led by the plaintiff to even remotely suggest that any of the provisos appended to Section 91 Evidence Act is attracted in this case.
47. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence capable of bringing the case of the plaintiff within the ambit of any of the provisos of Section 91 Evidence Act, the court has to proceed on the basis of Section 90 of the Evidence Act, and rely on the document i.e. Ex.D1 as it is, as its execution is admitted, however, the circumstances which the plaintiff alleges under which the said document was made have not been proved by the plaintiff.
48. Therefore, as the plaintiff has not been able to lead evidence to contradict, vary, add or subtract from the terms of document Ex.D1, the execution of which is admitted, therefore, the document Ex.D1 stands proved, and reliance deserves to be placed on the same. Accordingly, based on the above done discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that the CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556 Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 15 of 17 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2025.09.02 15:40:42 +0530 plaintiff has received a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- from the defendants in terms of document Ex.D1 at the time of vacating and handing over the possession of the suit property.
49. Before parting, this court deems it necessary and expedient to discuss one aspect of cross-examination of DW-1, wherein the plaintiff has endeavored to establish that the defendant was not having sufficient financial resource to repay the money. In the opinion of this court, in light of a written document Ex.D1, the execution of which is admitted, the question of financial resource to repay the money is wholly out of context.
50. The initial onus of proof was on the plaintiff to establish the circumstances that Ex.D1 was prepared forcefully under duress. However, the plaintiff has failed to discharge this onus. The question of financial resource of the defendant would accrue only if the plaintiff would have discharged his initial onus.
51. Before parting, this court also deems it necessary and expedient to discuss the aspect of evidence of the plaintiff, wherein, he has placed on record one mobile phone memory card, which according to him contains the recordings of conversations between the plaintiff and the defendants, wherein, the defendants have admitted their liability towards the plaintiff.
52. The plaintiff has also placed on record the transcripts of the recorded conversations. However, the plaintiff has not taken any steps as per law to prove the contents of the mobile phone memory card placed on record by him. Accordingly, this evidence is of no use.
53. Accordingly, on the basis of above done discussion, this court of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has not been CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556 Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 16 of 17 Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND Date: ANAND 2025.09.02 15:40:51 +0530 able to prove his case, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amount of Rs.5,90,000/- including interest @ 18% per annum, as prayed for.
54. Hence, the issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands? OPD
55. As the issue no.1 has been decided against the plaintiff, therefore, there is no occasion to decide issue no.2. RELIEF
56. Accordingly, on the basis of the above done discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
57. No orders as to cost.
58. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
59. File be consigned to record room after due compliance as per rules.
Judgment be digitally signed and uploaded online.
Announced in the open court
on 01.09.2025 Digitally signed
by SUMEET
SUMEET ANAND
(This judgment contains 17 pages and ANAND Date:
2025.09.02
each page bears my signature.) 15:41:03 +0530
(SUMEET ANAND)
District Judge-11, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi CS DJ No.20916/16 DL-00556 Arun Kumar Nirwan vs Smt. Leela Devi & Ors. Page 17 of 17