Delhi District Court
Sh. Satpal Arora vs Shri Kishan Lal Arora on 28 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER JIT SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-05, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Suit No. : CS DJ 206671/2016
CNR No. : DLST01-000448-2013
Suit filed on : 21.12.2013
Suit registered on : 03.05.2016
Arguments concluded on : 15.03.2023
Pronouncement on : 28.03.2023
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Satpal Arora
S/o Late Sh. Ram Prakash
R/o NIL-51 B Ground Floor,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017 ..................Plaintiff
Versus
1. Shri Kishan Lal Arora
S/o Late Sh. Ram Prakash
R/o 90/25-B, First Floor,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Smt. Raj Rani
W/o Late Sh. Subash Chand Arora,
Shop No. 25 ( First Floor) Old Main Market,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017
3. Ms. Sonia D/o Late Sh. Subash Chand Arora
W/o Shri Chanchal Arora,
R/o -c/o Shop No. 25 (First Floor) Old Main
Market, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017
4. Ms. Puja d/o Late Sh. Subash Chand Arora,
W/o Shri Chandeep Singh,
CS DJ 6671/2016
Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 21
Chander Jit Singh
ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi
R/o 27, Nirmal Puri, Duble Story, Lajpat Nagar-IV,
New Delhi-110024.
5. Ms. Rekha d/o Late Sh. Subash Chand Arora,
W/o Sh. Praween Kumar,
R/o House No. 50, Gali No. 41 Nw Gobindpura,
Chander Nagar, New Delhi-110051
6. Ms. Monica d/o Late Sh. Subash Chand Arora,
W/o Sh. Sumit Kakkar,
R/o A-53, Amrit Puri,
Garhi East of Kailash,
New Delhi-110065 .....................Defendants
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed this suit seeking recovery of sum of Rs. 4,63,332/- along with pendenlite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Plaintiff has also sought cost of the suit in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
PLAINT IN BRIEF
2. Succinctly put, it is contended by plaintiff that plaintiff and defendant No.1 are sons of Late Sh. Ram Prakash Arora and Late Smt. Sumitra Devi. That Ms. Sumitra Devi was owner of the property bearing shop No. 25, old Main Market, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. That said property consists of three shops on ground floor, and the super structure built on the first and second floor. That before the year 2010, second was in CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi possession of Sh. Bharat Bhushan Arora and Smt. Usha Arora. That unfortunately Sh. Bharat Bhushan Sharma expired in the year 2009. That after demise of Sh. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Smt. Usha Arora filed a civil suit for Mandatory Injunction bearing No. 214 (correct No. 287) in the year 2010 against Late Smt. Sumitra Devi, Shri Satpal Arora (plaintiff herein), Sh. Krishan Lal Arora and Late Subash Chand Arora titled as Smt. Usha Arora vs Subash Chand Arora & Ors in the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Consequently, Smt. Sumitra Devi had filed a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of damages against Smt. Usha Arora. That a kalandra u/s 107/150 CrPC had also been registered against Smt. Usha Arora, Satpal Arora, Kishan Lal Arora & Satpal Arora before Ld. S.E.M South District, P.S. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
2.1 It is further contended by plaintiff in his plaint that after deliberation and persuasion, parties to the said suits/ligations agreed to settle their disputes/issues amicably. That as per settlement, it was agreed that Smt. Usha Arora should to vacate and handover peaceful possession of second floor of the property bearing shop No. 25, Old/main Market, Malviya Nagar, Delhi to Smt. Sumitra Devi on or before 22.8.2010 and in lieu thereof, Smt. Usha Arora was to be paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- at the time of vacating and handing over the possession of said premises. That thereafter she was to be paid a sum of Rs.
CS DJ 6671/2016Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi 10,000/- per month for a period of two years from the date of vacation of the said premises. That it was also agreed that Smt. Usha Arora would withdraw all cases filed by her against other party. The said settlement was recorded in writing on 20.8.2013 and was signed by all the parties. That it was also agreed among them that they shall equally share/borne said settlement amount which comes to Rs.2,46,000/- each. Thus, defendant No.1 and deceased husband of defendant No.2 showed their financial incapability to pay their share in settlement amount and requested plaintiff to pay same. That they shall reimburse/repay the same to the plaintiff. On assurance forwarded by the defendant No.1 and deceased husband of defendant No.2, plaintiff had paid Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash to said Smt. Usha Arora on 22.8.2012. That deceased husband of defendant No.1 paid Rs. 30,000/- to Smt. Usha Arora against her three monthly installment as per the settlement agreement. Further, rest of the 21 installments of Rs.10,000/- each for the period from January 2011 to September 2012 were also paid by plaintiff to Smt. Usha Arora. That total of all these installments which comes to Rs.2,10,000/-. Accordingly, plaintiff had paid in total Rs.7,10,000/- to Smt. Usha Arora. That as per agreed terms and conditions, defendant No.1 and deceased husband of defendant No.2 had to repay their respective 1/3rd share in the said amount of Rs. 7,10,000/- to the plaintiff which comes to Rs.4,63,332/- in total. That plaintiff had contacted defendant no.2 and deceased husband of Defendant no.2 as well CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi as other defendants numbers of times and requested them to return the amount of Rs. 4,63,332/- to him but defendants on one pretext or other avoided to pay the amount despite repeated reminders. That finally in the month of July 2013, defendants plainly refused to pay the said amount to the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff filed present suit for recovery of Rs. 4,63,332/- from defendants with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. That legal notice was duly served upon the defendant. That however despite receipt of the said legal notice neither defendants paid the said amount nor they have replied to the said legal notice. Hence, present suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.1 to 6.
3. Notice of present suit was issued to defendants and subsequently, they all had filed written statements jointly on their behalf. It was contended that avernments made in the plaint are incorrect and plaintiff has not come to this court with clean hands and has concealed true and material facts. That it is the plaintiff here who is trying to grab illegal monies from defendants by producing forged documents. That entire plaint is a concocted story and documents so relied upon by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated. It is further contended that Smt. Sumitra Devi had executed a Will vide registered will dated 01.7.2011 bearing registration No. 3309, book No. 3, vol. No. 1912 page 184-185 by which the property in question has been categorically CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi distributed and given clear transactions of monies paid to Smt. Usha Arora. It admitted that due to discord in family, certain litigations were filed by Smt. Usha Arora and on 20.8.2010, settlement was arrived at among the family members / parties. That as per said settlement, it was agreed that a total sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- will be paid to Smt. Usha Arora and share of each come to be Rs.2,50,000/- per head. It is also contended that regular payment was made by Late Smt. Sumitra Devi which is proved from the registered will dated 01.7.2011 in which she is categorically stated that she was regularly paying cash to Smt. Usha Arora through her son Sh. Satpal Arora as per compromise deed. That Late Smt. Sumitra Devi had also executed an affidavit dated 05.11.2011 wherein she clearly stated that regular installment of Rs. 10,000/- each is being paid by her. That suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action arisen in favour of the plaintiff. That defendants have paid their shares to Smt. Usha Arora as per the compromise deed dated 20.8.2010. All others contents made in the plaint have also been denied on behalf of all the defendants and submitted that suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with cost being frivolous and fabricated.
REPLICATION:-
4. Replication has also been filed on behalf of plaintiff wherein he reiterated facts as narrated/mentioned in the plaint. That contents of para 1 of preliminary objections and CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi submissions were not denied although, he denied all the contents made in the written statements filed by defendants.
ISSUES FRAMED
5. After completion of pleadings, issue were framed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 27.08.2014 which are as follows:-
1. Whether the present suit filed by plaintiff without any cause of action as defendants have made payment as per the Compromise Deed dated 20.8.2010? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for a sum of Rs. 4,63,332 as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, pendentelite and future interest as prayed for? OPD.
4. Relief EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF:
6. In order to prove, his case, plaintiff has examined two witnesses in support of his case. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1. Evidentiary affidavit was filed by PW-1 and he proved his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. In his evidentiary affidavit, CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi he deposed on the lines as stated in his plaint. He relied upon the various documents i.e.
(i) Compromise deed dated 20.8.2010 which is proved by him as Ex. PW1/1.
(ii) He stated that he had paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash to Smt. Usha Arora on 22.8.2010 and the receipt to this effect was duly executed by Smt. Usha Arora which is Ex. PW1/2.
(iii) The monthly receipts (21 no.) of the said installment of Rs. 10,000/- are proved as Ex.PW1/3.
(iv) He proved the copy of legal notice as Ex.PW1/4 and
(v) the postal receipts and acknowledgement received back are Ex. PW1/5 to PW1/6.
6.1 PW-1 was duly cross examined and during cross examination, he stated that he knew the amount due on the defendants is Rs. 7,10,000/-. That he denied of having paid Rs.5,00,000/- in cash to Smt. Usha Arora and Rs. 2,10,000/- through cheque. He denied that all the payments were made by Late Smt. Sumitra Devi. DW-1 also denied that his mother Smt. Sumitra Devi used to give him Rs.15,000/- per month to give installment to Smt. Usha Arora. PW-1 stated admitted that he has business of footwears and electricals. That his shop is at shop No. CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi 25, old Market, Malviya Nagar, New Dehi which is ladies footwear and the other one is shop No. 24, Malviya Nagar, Corner Market, New Delhi. PW-1 also stated shop No. 25, Old Market was given by his mother in the year 2009. He further admitted that as per the family settlement, Smt. Usha Arora used to come to his shop to collect the payments to installments. PW-1 denied that his mother has rented out the terrace of the suit property to Mr. Tana Ram. PW-1 also stated that middle portion of the shop No. 25, Old Malviya Nagar. PW-1 also denied that entire suit has been filed on wrong facts.
7. Smt. Usha Arora was examined as PW-2 who deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-1 in his evidence. She relied upon the compromise deed dated 20.8.2010 which is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/1. She stated that on 22.8.2010 Sh. Satpal Arora paid her a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- at the time of handing over the possession of the said property and she had issued the receipt in lieu thereof. She also admitted her signtures on Ex.PW1/2 at point X. She further stated that Late Sh. Subash Chand Arora had only paid her three installments of Rs. 10,000/- and rest of the twenty one installments of Rs. 10,000/- each was paid to her by plaintiff only and receipt to this effect were issued by her. She also admitted her signature on Ex. PW1/3 at point X- 1 to X-21.
CS DJ 6671/2016Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi 7.1. PW-2 was duly cross examined on behalf of defendants and during her cross examination, she admitted that she is not a summoned witness and she has come on request of plaintiff. PW-2 stated that she was in possession of second floor of property bearing house No. 25, Second Floor, Old Main Market, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. PW-2 also stated that she received Rs. 5,00,000/- on 22.08.2010 when she removed her goods and articles from said second floor. PW-2 said that she did not know whether her mother in law had let out the roof of second floor to one Sh. Thana Ram. PW-2 stated that Sumitra Devi had given to her Rs.10,000/- each for three months i.e. October, November and December 2010. PW-2 was confronted the will registration dated 01.7.2011 and she expressed about her ignorance of said Will. PW-2 also stated that the receipt was written in the court and she had signed the same in the Patiala House Court. PW-2 could not identify signatures at point C on Ex.PW1/2. PW-2 further testified that she had signed Ex.PW1/2 at point X and had handed over the receipt to the plaintiff. The receipts Ex.PW1/3 (colly) were prepared each month when she received the payment. She admitted her signatures at point X-1, X-2, X-3, X-4,X-5, X-6, X-7 and X-14 on Ex.PW1/3 (colly).
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS
8. Defendants have examined two witnesses in support of their case. Sh. Krishan Lal Arora has tendered his evidence by CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi way of affidavit which is proved by him as Ex.DW1/A. He reiterated the same facts as deposed/stated by him in written statement. He relied upon the copy of Will dated 01.7.2011 marked as D-1; copy of rent agreement dated 27.10.2010 as Mark 2 and Mark D-3 respectively. He proved copy of undertaking as marked D-4.
8.1. DW-1 was duly cross examined on behalf of plaintiff and during his cross examination, he stated that the shop No. 25, Old Market, Malviya Nagar was partitioned at the time of execution of Will in the year 2011. DW-1 was shown copy of compromise deed dated 20.8.2010 and after seeing the same, DW-1 stated to have put his signatures on the same at Point X and was proved the same Ex. D1W1/P1. DW-1 stated that he was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to Smt. Usha Arora and he did pay the same to her. DW-2 testified that roof of second floor of Shop No. 25 Old Market, Malviya Nagar was rented out by her mother Sumitra Devi to one Thana Ram and he used to pay rent of Rs. 15,000/- per month. That his mother used to pay Rs. 10,000/- in cash to Sh. Satpal Arora through Sh. Chintu and Satish and Satpal Arora used to pay Rs. 10,000/- received from Smt. Sumitra Devi to Smt. Usha Arora after calling her at his shop. DW-2 also stated that he had not witnessed all the aforesaid cash transactions personally. He further testified that his mother not used to go to bank and her accounts were being managed by CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi his Bhabi Smt. Raj Rani or her daughters. He admitted that original of documents relied upon by him as Mark-D-1 and D-4 are in possession of defendant No.2.
9. Smt. Raj Rani was examined as DW-2 and she has led her evidence by way of affidavit. She reiterated the same facts in examination in chief as are narrated by DW-1 in his affidavit. She relied upon the copy of Will dated 01.7.2011 which is already exhibited by DW-1 as Ex. DW1/2. She also relied upon the documents I.e copy of rent agreement dated 27.10.2010 and 04.10.2010 which are already marked as Mark-D-2 and D-3.
9.1. DW-2 was cross examined at length on behalf of plaintiff. During her cross examination, she stated that original of Will dated 01.7.2011 as well as the Rent Agreement are in her possession. She stated that as on date her sister in law (Nanad) Smt. Pramod Bala is residing on the second floor of the same property i.e. shop No. 25 Old Market, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. DW-2 further stated that Smt. Pramod Bala started residing on the second floor after Smt. Usha Arora vacated the premises on second floor. She also deposed that electricity bill of second floor was also paid by Smt. Pramod Bala since then. She also stated that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid in her presence to Smt. Usha Arora. She further testified that all installments in cash at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month, which was to be paid on behalf of defendant No.1, was paid by her CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi mother in law to the plaintiff in cash. She further admitted that financial condition of her husband was sound at the time when amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was given to Smt. Usha Rani on 22.8.2010. She further stated identified the document mark X. She stated that Smt. Usha Arora used to collect cash from her mother in law as against the 24 installments of Rs. 10,000/- each.
DISCUSSION:-
ISSUE NO.1, 2 :-
10. The onus of proving of these issues is upon plaintiff. I have heard both the parties and gone through the record. Written arguments have also been filed on behalf of both the parties. I have gone through written arguments as well.
11. Issue No. 1 and 2 are taken together are they are interconnected and have bearing on each other. In the present matter, there are certain facts which are admitted by both the parties and thus, does not require elaborate discussion. It is admitted that compromise was entered into between parties to suit with Ms. Usha Arora and pursuant said compromise, approximately 7,50,000/- in total were to be paid to her. That out of that total amount, Rs.5,00,000/- were paid on 22.8.2010 and remaining amount is to be paid in two years in installments at the rate of Rs.10,000/- for each month. It is also an admitted CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi position that three installments of Rs. 10,000/- each were paid on behalf of defendant No.1. Hence, on these facts, no further detailed discussion will be held.
12. It is the case of plaintiff that in pursuant to said agreement/compromise with Smt. Usha Arora, due to the reason of financial incapability of defendant No.1 and deceased husband of defendant No.2, he had paid Rs. 7,10,000/- to Smt. Usha Arora. In respect of the said payment, there are two parts of it. A lump sum Rs.5,00,000/- is claimed to be paid to Smt. Usha Arora by Plaintiff and remaining amount of ₹2,10,000/- is claimed to be paid by way of monthly installments.
13. As far as lump sum payment of Rs. 5,00,.0000/- is concerned, plaintiff relies upon Ex. PW1/2 which is a receipt cum possession letter. As per this document, plaintiff claims to have paid Rs. 5,00,000/- to Smt. Usha Arora and thereafter, possession of said premises was handed over to Smt. Sumitra Devi, deceased mother of plaintiff. Receipt also records that it has been signed after understanding contents of receipt in vernacular and has been signed and executed in presence of witnesses. Executant of this receipt is Smt. Usha Arora who has been examined as PW-2. PW-2 has identified her signatures on the receipt Ex.PW1/2 at point X. However, on being confronted with this document during her cross examination, PW-2 states CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi that she cannot identify signatures of witness at point B nor she can identify signatures of witness at point C. PW-2 further states that ' it is correct that I had signed Ex. PW1/2 at point X and had handed over this receipt to plaintiff.' PW-2 has also stated that ' I had not read the contents of Ex. PW1/2 before signing.' She also states that that she cannot identify signatures at point C on Ex. PW1/2. She admitted that signatures at point B was not done in her presence. She also stated that the signatures at point C were not done in her presence.
13.1 It is the case of defendants that plaintiff had forged and fabricated EX.pw1/2 and has misused the same with intention to coerce defendants for paying him money which they do not owe him. Defendants have also contended that Ex. PW1/2 is not the receipt which was executed on 22.8.2010 rather another receipt was executed which was witnessed by Bharti Arora and Udit Arora, Gurucharan and Satpal. However, defendant could not bring the original of said other receipt on record nor produced in original of the said receipt for perusal of Court. Therefore, this document i.e. other receipt relied upon by defendants could not be prove in evidence and thus, same cannot be relied upon nor can be looked into. Now, genuineness of Ex.PW1/2 is required to assessed. Ex. PW1/2 bears signatures of three persons i.e. executant Smt. Usha Arora and witnesses, namely Gurucharan and Satpal Arora. Smt. Usha Arora had CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi identified her signature on Ex. PW1/2. However, plaintiff remained silent in respect of his signatures on Ex. PW1/2 and has never asserted to have signed the same. The third person was never examined by plaintiff. Therefore, testimony of PW-2 become very important as far as proving Ex. PW1/2 is concerned. A signatory to a document can be said to have signed the documents where his mind is on the same page as is the document. In other words, a document cannot be given effect or relied upon if there is absence of consensus ad idem of executant qua the document in question. In simple words, it implies that signatory of a document understand and intend to mean contents of document, in the same manner as the language of document, so signed, suggest and indicate. Ex. PW1/2 records that receipt is signed and executed by Smt. Usha Arora after understanding the contents of receipt whereas during her testimony as PW-2 she has stated that she did not read contents of receipt before signing it. Therefore, it can be said in present factual matrix especially in backdrop of categorical statement by PW-2, that there is absence of consensus ad idem qua Ex.PW1/2. Further, Ex.PW1/2 records that receipt is signed and executed by Smt. Usha Aroa in presence of witnesses whereas in her testimony, during cross examination on 14.2.2017, she has specifically stated that witnesses have not signed in her presence and after signing the receipt, she had handed over the same to plaintiff. On this count as well, testimony of PW-2 contradict terms of receipt. Above CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi discussion reflects that there are lot of contradictions in respect of as to how, where and in whose presence receipt Ex.PW1/2 was executed. The testimony of Smt. Usha Arora put the genuineness of Ex. PW1/2 under serious doubt. PW-1 Satpal Arora remained silent regarding his signatures on Ex.PW1/2 though he claims that it was duly executed by Smt. Usha Arora. Due execution of the document does not mean or is limited only to proving the signatures of executant being appended to the document specially when the executant makes specific statements which are not in consonance, rather are in contradict, contents of document. This omission of Plaintiff to assert his signature on an important document such as Ex.PW1/2 greatly dents the version of Plaintiff qua this aspect. As far as payment of ₹5,00,000/- is concerned, Plaintiff has based his entire case on Ex.PW1/2. Besides, Ex. PW1/2, plaintiff has not brought on record any material or document or witness that it was him who paid said money. Plaintiff has not placed on record any document to show any commensurate withdrawal of money from his bank account nor any other material is put on record which could reflect that Plaintiff raised money for payment of ₹5,00,000/- to Smt. Usha On behalf of defendants, it is contended that Rs. 2,50,000/- were contributed by defendant No.1 and plaintiff has claimed that he has paid the entire money. Onus of proving this fact of paying the entire money is upon plaintiff and to discharge his burden, plaintiff examined himself and PW-2. However, gist of his CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi testimony is that fact of payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- by plaintiff to Smt. Usha Arora could be deduced from Ex. PW1/2. Therefore, extent of reliability of testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 was dependent upon credibility and proper proof of Ex. PW1/2. As discussed above, statements of executant Smt. Usha Arora put genuineness of Ex. PW1/2 in serious doubt. Hence, it cannot be held that plaintiff has proved that it was him alone who paid Rs. 5,00,000/- to Smt. Usha Arora.
14. As far as, second aspect of payment is concerned, plaintiff relied upon on Ex. PW1/3 which contains 21 monthly receipts. The said receipts have been perused. Said receipts (Ex.PW1/3) are very brief which states fact of receiving installments payment through cheque with cheque number, date and name of the bank except in some of the receipt name of bank is not mentioned. PW-2 has identified and admitted executing these receipts. As noted above, it is an admitted fact that the payment of monthly installments were made to Smt. Usha Arora. Therefore, receipt produced by Plaintiff were meant and was an attempt to show that said monthly payment was made by Satpal Arora, plaintiff herein alone. However, perusal of receipt in shows that no where it mentions as to who has made payment to Smt. Usha Arora. The situation is similar in respect of all 21 receipts. The receipts in question mentions cheque number vide which payment was received but plaintiff has not brought any CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi record of bank to show that the said payment has been made through his account. Defendants have stated in their evidence that deceased mother in law of defendant No.2 and mother of defendant No.1 used to pay in cash to plaintiff and plaintiff used to transfer money to Smt. Usha Arora. Therefore, this admission by defendants that it was plaintiff who was paying money to Smt. Usha Arora, claim of plaintiff regarding payment of 21 monthly installment to Smt. Usha Arora stands fortified. To discredit plaintiff of his claim regarding payment of monthly installments, defendants should have bring on record some material to substantiate their contentions of cash being transferred to plaintiff. To prove this contention, claim of basis of earning of deceased Sumitra Arora was terrace of her property being let out could not be proved by defendants. Rent agreement in respect of same was produced but it could not be proved as original of the said rent agreement was never produced nor any other material such as rent receipt or receipt of rent in any bank account of deceased mother-in-law in respect of property being let out receipt is produced. Hence, in view of material on record, this contention of defendants remains a bare assertion which does not hold water and does not discredit case of plaintiff to this extent. Thus, plaintiff has been able to establish that he has paid Rs.2,10,000/-on behalf of all defendants. On this aspect, PW-1 has stood his ground despite cross examination and has been able to establish that he was agreed for payment by him on behalf of CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 19 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi others. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover 2/3 of money paid by him. As, Plaintiff could establish that he is entitled to recover money but he could establish this fact of only to the extent of ₹2,10,000/- in total on behalf of others and is entitled to recover 2/3rd of it, which comes to ₹1,40,000/- to be equally share by Defendant no.1, Defendant no. 2 to Defendant no.5 (one group). Both these issues are decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3:-
15. Onus of proving to this issue is upon plaintiff. Plaintiff has also sought interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding amount. It is apparent that the rate of interest claimed is not only exorbitant but is in the form of penalty. Interest on amount due is to give the person entitled to money, a reasonable compensation for the period during he was denied money, which, otherwise, should have been paid to him. In simple words, it is a monetary compensation for being forced to have been parted with his money. However, plaintiff is not entitled to interest which is in the form of terrorem but is entitled to nominal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of its decree till its realization.
15.1 As discussed above, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed of 2/3 of money paid by him. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and plaintiff is entitled to recover CS DJ 6671/2016 Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 20 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi 2/3 money paid by him which comes to Rs. 1,40,000/- plus interest @ 6% per annum on the decreetal amount.
RELIEF:-
16. Thus, suit of plaintiff is partly decreed with cost for a sum of Rs.1,40,000- (Rupees One lakh forty thousands only) alongwith interest at the rate of 6% pendentilite with future interest from the date of decree till its realization against defendants in equal share from defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 to defendant no.5 (one group). Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Announced in the open court.
Dated. 28.03.2023 CHANDER JIT SINGH ADJ-05, SOUTH SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI/28.03.2023 This judgment contains 21 pages. Each page has been checked and signed by me.
CS DJ 6671/2016Satpal Arora Vs Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.
Page no. 21 of 21 Chander Jit Singh ADJ05, South Saket, New Delhi