Delhi District Court
Chandra Prabha Sachdeva vs Jerry Prince Williams on 3 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT010188472017
Presided by:-
Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, DHJS
CS DJ no. 4256/2017
CNR No. DLCT01-018847-2017
1. Chander Prabha Sachdeva
W/o Late Sh. Subhash Chander Sachdeva
R/o House No. 17, H-3 Block, Antriksha
Apartment, Vikas Puri, Delhi.
2. Divya Tandon
D/o Late Sh. Subhash Chander Sachdeva
W/o Sh. Rashu Tandon
R/o Ghooran Tallaiya Chota Chowk,
Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh-242001.
3. Rohit Sachdeva
D/o Late Sh. Subhash Chander Sachdeva
R/o House No. 17, H-3 Block, Antriksha
Apartment, Vikas Puri, Delhi. .......Plaintiffs
Vs.
Jerry Prince Williams
CS DJ 4256/2017
Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams
Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 1 of 34
(Proprietor William Infrastructure)
S/o Late Sh. M. Williams
Office at: UG-6, Jyoti Shikhar Tower,
District Tower, Janak Puri,
New Delhi- 110058.
Also at
C/o Sonia/Sunita Tyagi Williams
Flat No. 4, Samaj Kalyan Apartment,
2nd Floor, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi-110018, .......Defendant
Date of Institution:- 20.12.2017
Date of conclusion of final arguments:- 29.11.2024
Date of Judgment:- 03.02.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Originally, the present Suit was filed (on 19.12.2017) under Order XXXVII CPC, 1908 for recovery of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Lakh Only), together with pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum and costs of this Suit. The said Summary Suit was filed by Smt. Chandra Prabha Sachdeva as a sole plaintiff, alleging that the plaintiff and her late husband Sh. Subhash Chandra Sachdeva had advanced a friendly loan to the defendant and after the death of her husband, the defendant in discharge of his liability issued three cheques to the plaintiff which on presentation got dishonoured for reasons 'account blocked'. Unconditional leave, however, was granted to the defendant vide Order dated 27.03.2018 of this Court and the defendant accordingly filed his written statement. The plaintiff CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 2 of 34 thereafter filed replication to the written statement of the defendant. Issues were framed. Further, during hearing of the Suit, evidence was recorded.
2. When the Suit was at the stage of the final arguments, an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, 1908 came to be filed by Smt. Divya Tandon and Sh. Rohit Sachdeva for their impleadment in the Suit as the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 alleging that they are daughter and son of Late Sh. Subhash Chandra Sachdeva and are representing along with their mother (the plaintiff) the estate of their deceased father and as such are necessary parties. The said application was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 19.07.2023 with a direction to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint in terms of provisions of Order I Rule 10 (4) CPC, 1908. In compliance with the Order dated 19.07.2023, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, which was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 07.06.2024. Amended memo of parties and amended plaint were taken on record. The defendant thereafter filed his amended written statement. However, since no additional issues were required to be framed, the Suit was again posted for final arguments.
3. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the plaintiffs in the amended plaint, in brief, are as under:-
(a) That the defendant was/ is known to the plaintiffs and Late Sh. Subash Chander Sachdeva (husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiffs No. 2 & 3) for many years. The defendant had approached the plaintiff No. 1 and to her husband Late Sh. Subash Chander Sachdeva for a friendly loan of Rs. 10 lakh in March 2012 for a period of 2 years. Due to the long-standing association of the plaintiff No. 1 CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 3 of 34 and her husband with the defendant, an amount of Rs. 10 lakh was transferred on 14th of March 2012 by way of RTGS from their joint account to the account of the defendant by the name of 'William Infrastructures'. On the asking of the defendant, a loan agreement thereafter was entered into on 26th of March 2012 with respect to the said loan of Rs. 10 Lakh between the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant.
(b) That the defendant again requested to the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband on 27th of March 2012 for an additional loan amount of Rs.
10 Lakh citing acute exigency, and keeping in view the old acquaintances, husband of the plaintiff No. 1 again transferred an amount of Rs. 10 lakh from their joint account to the account of the defendant (in the name of 'William Infrastructure;) on 28th of March 2012 through RTGS. Husband of the plaintiff No. 1, in good faith, however, did not enter into a loan agreement for this second loan transaction.
(c) In the month of July 2012, the defendant again asked for a loan of Rs.
5 lakh citing some urgent property dealings and the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband handed over an amount of Rs. 5 lakh in cash on 15th of July 2012.
(d) On the expiry of the two-year loan period in April 2014, when the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband asked the defendant for the return of the loan amount of Rs. 25 lakh (given in three separate transactions), the defendant on 26th of April 2014 made a meager transfer of Rs. 1 lakh to the joint account of the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband.
CS DJ 4256/2017Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 4 of 34
(e) That after constant persuasion, the defendant entered into a loan agreement dated 23rd of December 2014 with the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 whereby the defendant acknowledged the loan amount handed over to him at different dates (by the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband) and offered to pay Rs. 6 Lakh as total interest for the delay in clearing the loan amount, thereby admitting a total liability of Rs. 31 lakh. The plaintiff No. 1 and her husband had orally conceded the fact that they as a part payment had already received a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh from the defendant out of total Rs. 31 Lakh.
(f) The defendant however did not pay any amount despite repeated demands and in the meantime the husband of the plaintiff no. 1, who was reeling under depression because of non-payment of the loan amount, expired due to heart attack on 22nd of April 2016. Thereafter on constant persuasion and follow-up with the defendant, the defendant, in discharge of his aforesaid liability of Rs. 30 Lakh, issued three cheques in favour of the plaintiff No. 1, firstly cheque bearing number 431696 for Rs. 5 lakh, secondly cheque bearing number 503103 for Rs. 12,50,000 and thirdly cheque bearing number 503104 for Rs. 12,50,000, all dated 10th of July 2017 and all drawn on Karnataka Bank, Vikas Puri branch.
(g) When the plaintiff No. 1 presented all the aforesaid three cheques in her saving bank account with Bank of India, Bank Street Branch, all the three cheques were returned unpaid by the banker of the defendant (i.e. The Karnataka Bank Ltd.) vide a document dated 27th of July 2017 viz. "list of clearing instruments presented at non-base centres-
CS DJ 4256/2017Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 5 of 34 other than normal clearing", with the remarks "Account blocked". The plaintiff No. 1 was intimated about dishonoring of cheques by her bank (Bank of India) vide "Inward return report" dated 29th of July 2017.
(h) The plaintiff No. 1 thereafter issued a legal notice on 11th of August 2017 through counsel calling upon the defendant to pay the aforesaid cheques amounts. The defendant however failed to repay the amount despite legal notice being duly served upon the defendant. This led the plaintiff No. 1 filing a Criminal Complaint for offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the defendant vide CC No. 21306/2017 (which was subsequently decided by the Ld. MM, NI Act-06, Central, THC, Delhi vide Order and Judgment dated 26.02.2022 in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 herein).
(i) Since the defendant failed to pay the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff No. 1 even after issuance of legal notice dated 11th of August 2017, the plaintiff No. 1 filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Lakh Only), together with pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum and costs of this Suit. The plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 had given, at the time of filing of the present Suit, oral authority/ permission to the plaintiff No. 1 to file the present Suit. The plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 have also ratified all the acts of the plaintiff No. 1 done in relation with the present Suit. That, in any case, the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 got themselves impleaded in the present Suit as co-plaintiffs to CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 6 of 34 enable this Court to adjudicate effectively all the questions involved in the present Suit.
4. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues of this Suit, appearance was put on behalf of the defendant. Thereafter, a written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant filed an amended written statement to the amended plaint of the plaintiffs.
5. In the amended written statement of the defendant, it is inter alia pleaded that no cause of action was/ is available to the plaintiffs in as much as they were/ are not aware of transactions in question, as the same was between the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant; that the plaintiffs by way of amended plaint are trying to fill the lacunas after 6 years of trial at the fag end; that the plaintiffs have not come to this Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from this Court; that the true facts are that the plaintiff No. 3 was/ is a friend of the defendant (who is engaged in the profession of builder), and the plaintiff No. 3 and his father (who happens to be husband of the plaintiff No. 1) wanted to invest the money in the projects of the defendant and to earn profits therefrom; that with that view (of investment), husband of the plaintiff No. 1 invested the amount of Rs. 10 Lakh in the projects of the defendant on which the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 received huge profits (and there is no dues against the defendant); that due to some technical pecuniary problems, however, the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 wanted to enter into a loan agreement dated 26th of March 2012, to which the defendant, due to old friendships, could not deny; that the plaintiff No. 3 and husband of the plaintiff No. 1 further showed their interest to invest in another project of the defendant and CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 7 of 34 intended to purchase one flat bearing No. WZ-84, Sant Nagar, New Delhi for a total sale consideration of Rs. 28,00,000/- and gave Rs. 10,00,000/- to the defendant and for that purpose an agreement to sell dated 26th of March 2012 was executed between the defendant and the plaintiff No. 3 (the plaintiffs malafidely showed this amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as subsequent loan given to the defendant on 28th of March 2012); that the plaintiff No. 3 did not pay, in terms of agreement to sell dated 26th of March 2012, the balance amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- to the defendant and the said amount was adjusted from the profits of the plaintiff No. 3 and husband of the plaintiff No. 1; that the defendant did not take any loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband, and the plaintiffs are lying and putting a false story just to match their claim with the alleged agreement dated 26th of March 2012; that the defendant made a transfer of Rs. 1 Lakh in the account of the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 in connection with a transaction of the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 with the defendant regarding investing the money in projects of the defendant; that the agreement dated 23rd of December 2014 is a forged and manipulated document as no such agreement was executed between the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant (is further evident from the fact that there is no reference in this agreement about payment of Rs. 1 Lakh by the defendant to the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 on a previous occasion i.e. on 26th of April 2014); since there was no liability of the defendant, the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 during his lifetime issued no legal notice and filed no case against the defendant; that the cheques in question pertain to cheque book issued to the defendant during 2013-14 which (cheques in CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 8 of 34 question) were lying with the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 for the security purposes, and the plaintiff No. 1 malafidely misused the same in the year 2017; that the defendant has already preferred an appeal against his conviction in 138 NI Act case which is pending before Ld. ASJ; and that in view of the above, the Suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. Plaintiff No. 1 had earlier filed the replication to the written statement of the defendant wherein she denied the case of the defendant and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint. However, no replication was filed by the plaintiffs to the amended written statement of the defendant.
7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide Order dated 27.07.2018:-
1) Whether there was no cause of action available to the plaintiff to file the present Suit, as alleged by the defendant ? OPD
2) Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts and for this reason as well, the Suit deserves to be dismissed, as alleged by the defendant ? OPD
3) Whether the amount given by the plaintiff's husband to the defendant was not as a loan but as by way of investment, and that the plaintiff has even earned profit thereon, as alleged by the defendant ? OPD
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount as claim, or any other amount ? OPP
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, as claimed, if so, at what rate and for what period ? OPP CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 9 of 34
6) Relief.
8. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs examined Smt. Chandra Prabha Sachdeva (plaintiff No. 1) as PW1, who has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A alongwith following documents:-
(i) Ex.PW1/1 (Copy to copy): Statement of account of A/c No. 603912110000029 (maintained with Bank of India, Vikaspuri, Delhi) jointly held by the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband
(ii) Ex.PW1/2 (Copy to copy): Statement of account of A/c No. 603910100024797 (maintained with Bank of India, Vikaspuri, Delhi) jointly held by the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband
(iii) Ex.PW1/3 (Copy to copy): Loan agreement dated 23.12.2014
(iv) Ex.PW1/3A: Loan agreement dated 23.12.2014
(v) Ex.PW1/4 (True copy): Certified copy of three cheques bearing Nos. 431696, 503103 and 503104
(vi) Ex.PW1/5 (Copy to copy): List of clearing instruments presented at non-base centres- other than normal clearing dated 27.07.2017
(vi) Ex.PW1/6 (Copy to copy): Inward return report dated 29.07.2017
(vii) Ex.PW1/7 (True copy): Certified copy of legal notice dated 11.08.2017
(viii) Ex.PW1/8 (True copy): Certified copy of postal receipts
(ix) Ex.PW1/9 to 11 (Copy to copy): Certified copy of tracking report
(x) Ex.PW1/12 (True copy): Certified copy of AD Card
(xi) Ex.PW1/13 (True copy): Certified copy of pre-summoning evidence dated 13.09.2017 of the plaintiff recorded in CC No. 21306/ 2017 CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 10 of 34
9. PW1 was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant. During Cross-
examination of PW1 following documents were exhibited/ marked:-
(i) Ex.PW1/DX1: Agreement dated 26.03.2012
(ii) Mark P1/DX1: Agreement to sell dated 26.03.2012
10. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. PE was thereafter closed vide order dated 06.10.2021 and the Suit was posted for the defendant's evidence.
11. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant Sh. Jerry Prince Williams himself examined as DW1. During the examination-in-chief, DW1 Sh. Jerry Prince Williams had deposed in line with the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/1 alongwith following documents:-
(i) Ex. DW1/1: Agreement to sell dated 26.03.2012 (previously marked as Mark P1/DX1)
12. DW1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1. During Cross-
examination of DW1 following documents were exhibited/ marked:-
(i) Ex.DW1/P1: Certified copy of Sale deed dated 23.08.2013, registered on 04.09.2013
(ii) Ex.DW1/P2: Certified copy of statement of defendant recorded as accused under Section 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. dated 30.08.2019 in CC No. 11299/17 in case titled "Chandra Prabha Sachdeva V/s Jerry Prince Williams" U/s 138 NI Act
(iii) Ex.DW1/P3: Certified copy of cross-examination of defendant dated 30.08.2019 conducted as accused in CC No. 11299/17 in case titled "Chandra Prabha Sachdeva V/s Jerry Prince Williams" U/s 138 NI Act CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 11 of 34
(iv) Ex.DW1/P4: Copy of Judgment dated 26.02.2022 passed in CC No. 11299/17 in case titled "Chandra Prabha Sachdeva V/s Jerry Prince Williams" U/s 138 NI Act
(v) Ex.DW1/P5: Copy of order dated 23.03.2022 on sentence passed in CC No. 11299/17 in case titled "Chandra Prabha Sachdeva V/s Jerry Prince Williams" U/s 138 NI Act
(vi) Ex.DW1/P6: Application for leave to defend application u/o 37 Rule 3(5) CPC along with affidavit dated 03.02.2018
(vii) Ex.DW1/P7: Written Statement dated 05.04.2018 of the defendant.
13. No other DW was examined. DE was accordingly closed vide order dated 07.11.2022 and thereafter the suit was listed for final arguments.
14. As already noted, when the Suit was at the stage of final arguments, an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, 1908 came to be filed by Smt. Divya Tandon and Sh. Rohit Sachdeva for their impleadment in the Suit as the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3. The said application was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 19.07.2023 with a direction to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint in terms of provisions of Order I Rule 10 (4) CPC, 1908. In compliance with the Order dated 19.07.2023, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, which was allowed by his Court vide Order dated 07.06.2024. Amended memo of parties and amended plaint were taken on record. The defendant thereafter filed his amended written statement. However, since no additional issues were required to be framed, the Suit was again posted for final arguments.
CS DJ 4256/2017Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 12 of 34
15. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, this court had heard the counsel for the parties, on 25.09.2024, 12.11.2024 and 29.11.2024. I have heard the contentions of both sides and also gone through the record carefully. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NOs. 2 AND 3
2) Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts and for this reason as well, the Suit deserves to be dismissed, as alleged by the defendant ? OPD
3) Whether the amount given by the plaintiff's husband to the defendant was not as a loan but as by way of investment, and that the plaintiff has even earned profit thereon, as alleged by the defendant ? OPD
16. Both these issues are taken together as they involve common discussion.
Onus to prove issue Nos. 2 and 3 was on the defendant.
17. Before coming to the case of the defendant, let us first examine the case of the plaintiffs and see whether the plaintiffs have been able to discharge their initial burden to prove it.
18. The plaintiffs for recovery of suit amount are primarily relying on two things viz. (i) an execution of a loan agreement dated 23rd December 2014, Ex. PW1/3A and (ii) dishonoring of three cheques issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff No. 1, proving through certified copy of three cheques bearing Nos. 431696, 503103 and 503104 (all dated 10.07.2017), Ex.PW1/4, list of clearing instruments presented at non-base centres- other than normal clearing dated 27.07.2017, Ex.PW1/5 and Inward return report dated 29.07.2017, Ex.PW1/6.
CS DJ 4256/2017Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 13 of 34
19. The defendant's contention is that the agreement dated 23rd of December 2014, Ex.PW1/3A is a forged and manipulated document and no such agreement was executed between the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant. The plaintiffs, however, through cross-examination of defendant (DW1), and by confronting him by his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. dated 30.08.2019, and his cross-examination, in CC No. 11299/17 in case titled "Chander Prabha Sachdeva V/s Jerry Prince Williams" u/s 138 NI Act, have been able to demonstrate that the defendant is lying on this aspect. I am reproducing the relevant portions of cross- examination of DW1;
"At this stage, witness is shown Ex.PW1/3A which is agreement dated 23.12.2014 and asked the witness whether Ex.PW1/3A bears his photograph, Stamp of William Infrastructure, Aadhar Card number and signatures. The witness states that his photograph, Stamp of William Infrastructure and Aadhar Card number is there on Ex.PW1/3A, however, he denies his signatures. It is wrong to suggest that Ex.PW1/3A bears my signature at point A, B & C and the same is executed by me.
At this stage, the witness is shown certified copy of his statment u/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. dated 30.08.2019 in CC No. 11299/17 in case titled "Chander Prabha Sachdeva V/s Jerry Prince Williams" u/s 138 NI Act, from point A to B wherein witness has affirmed his signatures on Ex.CW1/2 (which is Ex.PW1/3A in the present suit) and also stated that he had executed Ex.CW1/2 and witness states that it is correct that he has stated the CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 14 of 34 abovesaid facts. The certified copy of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. dated 30.08.2019 in CC No. 11299/17 in case titled "Chander Prabha Sachdeva V/s Jerry Prince Williams"
u/s 138 NI Act is now exhibited as Ex. DW1/P2.
At this stage, the witness is shown certified copy of his cross examination dated 13.09.2021 in CC No. 11299/17 in case titled "Chander Prabha Sachdeva V/s Jerry Prince Williams" u/s 138 NI Act from point A & B. The witness states that it is correct that he has stated that Ex.CW1/2 (which is Ex.PW1/3A in the present suit) bears his signature at point 'A' on each page. The certified copy of his cross examination dated 13.09.2021 in CC No. 11299/17 in case titled "Chander Prabha Sachdeva V/s Jerry Prince Williams" u/s 138 NI Act is now exhibited as Ex. DW1/P3.
Q. Have you anywhere stated that Ex.PW1/3A is a forged document ?
Ans. No. I did not say anywhere that Ex.PW1/3A is a forged document.
At this stage, the witness is confronted with his application for leave to defend u/o 37 Rule 3(5) CPC along with affidavit dated 03.02.2018 which is now exhibited as Ex.DW1/P6 from point A to B on page No. 8. The witness states that it is correct that he has mentioned that agreement dated 23.12.2014 is a forged and manipulated document.
At this stage, the witness is confronted with his Written Statement dated 05.04.2018 which is now exhibited as Ex.DW1/P7 CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 15 of 34 from point A to B on page No. 7. The witness states that it is correct that he has mentioned that agreement dated 23.12.2014 is a forged and manipulated document."
20. DW1 thus in his cross-examination has been compelled to admit that he had executed the agreement dated 23rd of December 2014, Ex.PW1/3A. From reading the contents of the loan agreement dated 23.12.2014, Ex. PW1/3A, it is apparent that the defendant has accepted and acknowledged receiving a total loan amount of Rs. 25 lakh i.e., an amount of Rs. 20 lakh through two RTGS transactions and an amount of Rs. 5 lakh in cash from the husband of the plaintiff No. 1. The defendant has also undertaken to pay a total interest of Rs. 6 lakh on the principal amount of Rs. 25 lakh, amounting to total liability of Rs. 31 lakh. The defendant has further assured to repay the total amount of Rs. 31 Lakh on or before 7th of January 2015.
21. The plaintiff No. 1 and her husband had acknowledged/ conceded the fact that they had already received a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh from the defendant on 26th of April 2014 in their joint account. Liability of the defendant as such was of Rs. 30 Lakh only towards the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband. \
22. In the meantime the husband of the plaintiff No. 1, who was reeling under depression because of non-payment of loan amount, expired due to heart attack on 22nd of April 2016. Thereafter on constant persuasion and follow-up with the defendant, the defendant in discharge of his aforesaid liability of Rs. 30 Lakh, issued three cheques in favour of the plaintiff No. 1, firstly cheque bearing number 431696 for Rs. 5 lakh, secondly cheque bearing number 503103 for Rs. 12,50,000 and thirdly cheque bearing CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 16 of 34 number 503104 for Rs. 12,50,000, all dated 10th of July 2017 and all drawn on Karnataka Bank, Vikas Puri branch. However, on presentation, all the three cheques were returned unpaid with the remark 'account closed'.
23. The defendant (DW1) in his cross examination has admitted his signatures on all the three cheques collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/4. I am reproducing the relevant portions of cross-examination of DW1;
"[I]t is correct that 03 cheques in question which is Ex.PW1/4 (Colly) all dated 10.07.2017 bear my signatures at point A, B & C .
(Vol. I had given the blank cheques to late Sh. Subash Chander Sachdeva.) It is wrong to suggest that I had given Ex.PW1/4 (Colly) to the plaintiff towards my legally enforceable liabilities. (Vol. I had given blank cheques to Late Sh. Subash Chander Sachdeva as a security purpose). It is correct that I have not returned Rs. 30,00,000/- to the plaintiff (Vol. I have sold a flat in their favour in the year 2013)..."
24. So, the plaintiffs have been able to prove that the defendant, in discharge of his admitted liability of Rs. 30,00,000/-, issued three cheques in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 which on presentation got dishonoured with the remark 'account closed'. Even otherwise, the DW1 in his cross-examination has admitted his signatures on all the three cheques collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/4. Once the execution is proved/ admitted, Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 imposes a duty on the court to raise a presumption that the negotiable instrument was made for the consideration.
CS DJ 4256/2017Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 17 of 34
25. Now, in this backdrop, let us consider the case/ defences/ submissions of the defendant.
First Transaction of Rs. 10 lakh on 14th of March 2012 by way of RTGS
26. The defendant has admitted the fact that he has received an amount of Rs.
10 lakh in his account 'William Infrastructures' on 14th of March 2012 by way of RTGS from a joint account of the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband having A/c No. 603912110000029 maintained with Bank of India, Vikashpuri. The plaintiffs otherwise have proved this transaction through Statement of account of A/c No. 603912110000029 (maintained with Bank of India, Vikaspuri, Delhi) jointly held by the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband; Ex.PW1/1.
27. The defendant's submission qua this transaction (RTGS transaction of 14th of March 2012) is that the said amount was not transferred to him as a loan, rather made as an investment by the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 in the projects of the defendant. The defendant sought to avoid the agreement dated 26th of March 2012 Ex.PW1/DX1 executed in this regard by alleging that the same was executed at a request of the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 for some technical pecuniary problems. It was submitted that in the project, the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 earned huge profits and there are no dues against the defendant.
28. So, the defendant is admitting that he has received an amount of Rs. 10 lakh in his account 'William Infrastructures' on 14th of March 2012 by way of RTGS from a joint account of the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband. The defendant is also admitting his signature on loan agreement dated 26th of March 2012 Ex.PW1/DX1. The defendant however is trying to explain CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 18 of 34 that agreement dated 26th of March 2012 Ex.PW1/DX1 was in fact not a loan agreement but was executed at the request of husband of the plaintiff No. 1 for some technical pecuniary problems, while the payment was made by the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 as an investment in the projects of the defendant.
29. The defendant is trying to avoid the transaction of loan dated 14th of March 2012 and execution of loan agreement dated 26th of March 2012 Ex.PW1/DX1 on following grounds; (i) that it was the husband of PW1 who transferred the money and not the PW1 (PW1 though deposed in her cross examination that at the time of the transfer of amount, she was in office and her husband had called and informed her about transfer of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the defendant. PW1 has further deposed that the defendant had asked for a loan and her husband had given a friendly loan of Rs. 10 lakh to him), (ii) that the plaintiff No. 1/ PW1 in her cross-examination at the first instance deposed that no such agreement dated 26th of March 2012 was executed (though subsequently, on attention being drawn, PW1 identified the said agreement), (iii) that PW1 admitted the fact that agreement dated 26th of March 2012 was not executed in her presence and that she did not know its contents (though she accompanied her husband when the document was signed), and (iv) that as per the loan agreement dated 26th of March 2012 Ex.PW1/DX1, the payment was to be made in equated monthly instalments of Rs. 20,000/- per month.
30. The above submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant have to be considered in the backdrop that admittedly the amount was transferred from a joint account of the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband; that admittedly the CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 19 of 34 loan agreement dated 26th of March 2012 Ex.PW1/DX1 was executed between the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant; and that thereafter a subsequent agreement agreement dated 23rd of December 2014, Ex.PW1/3A was executed between the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant (which in effect superseded/ novated the earlier loan agreement dated 26th of March 2012 Ex.PW1/DX1). If viewed in this context, it is apparent that the objections of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant (noted in para 29 supra) are inconsequential.
31. Fact remains that the defendant has failed to bring on record any positive evidence showing that said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was transferred (on 14th of March 2012) to him by the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband not as a loan but in connection with some investment in some of his projects. The defendant has also failed to prove any circumstance showing that the agreement dated 26th of March 2012 Ex.PW1/DX1 was not meant to be a loan agreement and was executed at request of husband of the plaintiff No. 1 for some technical pecuniary problems.
32. Hon'ble Mysore High Court in Lakshmamma and others V/s M. Jayaram;
AIR 1952 Mys 114, held;
"8. There is hardly any doubt that mere affixing a signature or thumb-impression to a document does not amount to execution of a document. Attestors affix their thumb impressions or signatures to a document to indicate their having witnessed the execution of it. The scribe does so, not merely for having witnessed the execution of the document but also for having written it. Before a person is said to have executed a document it must be either proved or admitted that CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 20 of 34 he not only affixed his thumb-impression or signature, but also that he did so with the purpose of executing the document. Mere admission that a man affixed his signature or thumb-impression to a document does not mean that the execution of the document is admitted. When a thumb impression or a signature that purports to have been put in a document in token of its execution is admitted by a person to be his, there arises a presumption that he must have executed the document. Section 114 of the Evidence Act states:
"The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case."
9. The illustrations given to the above Section are not exhaustive of cases in which the presumptions arise. They are merely illustrations. From the fact that an admitted thumb-impression or signature of a person is found to be affixed to evidence the execution of the document it is open to the court to presume that the person could have affixed the signature or thumb-impression for executing the document. If he says that his thumb-impression or signature found in the document was taken for attesting the document for instance though it purports to have been put in for executing the document it is for him to prove that it is so. If it is his case that he affixed his signature or thumb-impression on a blank paper on which the CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 21 of 34 document must have been written later he has to prove that fact. If he fails to do so, the presumption is against him. At the same time, before any presumption arises against him, he must have unequivocally admitted that the signature on the document is his. It is not sufficient if he merely states he had on some occasion affixed his signature to a blank paper and the document in question might have been got up with the help of that document. It may not be necessary for the defendant to specifically state that his thumb impression or signature has been taken to the document in question. The admission must clearly amount to his saying so. In the case reported in '2 Mys. C.C.R. 167' the admission of defendant that the signature to suit document was his, was clear from his statement that his signature had been taken to a blank paper similar to that of suit pronote. It cannot be said that in every case the use of the word similar by a party cannot be said to be sufficient to infer that there is an admission that the signature in the document in question is his. The pleadings as a whole must be read and if from what is stated it is clear that a party admits that a signature purporting to have been affixed in token of execution of the document is his, the burden of proving the contrary is on him."
(Underlined by me)
33. In the present case the defendant though admitting his signature on the agreement dated 26th of March 2012 Ex.PW1/DX1 alleging that the same was not meant to be a loan agreement and was executed at request of CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 22 of 34 husband of the plaintiff No. 1 for some technical pecuniary problems. However, he failed to prove any circumstance on record showing that the agreement executed at request of husband of the plaintiff No. 1 for some technical pecuniary problems.
Second Transaction of Rs. 10 lakh on 28th of March 2012 by way of RTGS
34. The defendant has admitted the fact that he has received a subsequent amount of Rs. 10 lakh in his account 'William Infrastructures' on 28th of March 2012 by way of RTGS from a joint account of the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband having A/c No. 603910100024797 maintained with Bank of India, Vikashpuri. The defendant's submission however qua this transaction (RTGS transaction of 28th of March 2012) is that the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 made this payment (as part consideration) towards purchase of one flat of the defendant bearing No. WZ-84, Sant Nagar, New Delhi for a total sale consideration of Rs. 28,00,000/- and in this regard an agreement to sell dated 26th of March 2012; Ex.DW1/1 (previously marked as Mark P1/DX1) was executed between the defendant and the plaintiff No.
3. The plaintiff No. 3, however, did not pay, in terms of agreement to sell dated 26th of March 2012, the balance amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- to the defendant and the said amount was adjusted from the profits of the plaintiff No. 3 and his father. The plaintiffs dishonestly did not disclose this fact and did not file this agreement to sell on record.
35. So, what does the defendant want to convey is that this subsequent amount of Rs. 10 lakh transferred in his account 'William Infrastructures' on 28th of March 2012 by way of RTGS from a joint account of the plaintiff No. 1 CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 23 of 34 and her husband having A/c No. 603910100024797 maintained with Bank of India, Vikashpuri was regarding purchase of one flat of the defendant bearing No. WZ-84, Sant Nagar, New Delhi for a total sale consideration of Rs. 28,00,000/-, and in that regard an agreement to sell dated 26th of March 2012; Ex.DW1/1 (previously marked as Mark P1/DX1) was executed between the defendant and the plaintiff No. 3.
36. The relevant cross examination of DW1 in this regard is being reproduced herein below;
"Ex.DW1/1 is an agreement to Sell/ Bayana agreement between me and son of Late Sh. Subash Chander Sachdeva.
Xxxx It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiff has no connection with Ex.DW1/1 as it was a separate transaction which never materialised. It is correct that no Sale Deed was executed in favour of Sh. Rohit Sachdeva, but the Sale Deed was executed in somebody else's name. (Vol. The signatures on the Sale Deed was of Sh. Rohit Sachdeva being a witness).
At this stage, the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 23.08.2013 registered on 04.09.2013 executed between William Infrastructure through its Proprietor Sh. Jerry Prince William and Smt. Jasleen Kaur has been shown to the witness and the witness confirmed that it is the same Sale Deed mentioned above. The same is now Ex.DW1/P1. (Vol. Sh. Rohit Sachdeva received the consideration amount of the Sale Deed from the purchaser).CS DJ 4256/2017
Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 24 of 34 At this stage, the witness is confronted with page no. 6 of Ex DW1/P1 from point A to B where it is written that the witness Sh. Jerry Prince Willaim received the entire sale price of Rs. 14,20,000/- in cash as a vendor from the purchaser.
It is correct that Ex.DW1/P1 does not mention anywhere that Sh. Rohit Sachdeva has received the consideration amount of the Sale Deed from the purchaser. It is wrong to suggest that I have intentionally made false statement in order to misguide the Hon'ble court to obtain favourable order from the court. (Vol. Sh. Rohit Sachdeva received the consideration amount of the Sale Deed from the Purchaser and I have signed on behalf of Sh. Rohit Sachdeva)."
37. The plaintiffs from cross examination of DW1 have been able to show that though an agreement to sell dated 26th of March 2012; Ex.DW1/1 (previously marked as Mark P1/DX1) was executed between the defendant and the plaintiff No. 3 regarding purchase of one flat of the defendant bearing No. WZ-84, Sant Nagar, New Delhi, the defendant, however, sold the very same property/ flat to one Smt. Jasleen Kaur for a total consideration of Rs. 14,20,000 in cash. Meaning thereby, the property/ flat was not sold to the plaintiff No. 3, rather sold to one Smt. Jasleen Kaur. The plaintiffs have further been able to show that it was the defendant who received the sale consideration of Rs. 14,20,000/- in cash from the said Smt. Jasleen Kaur. The defendant's submission is that though it is written in Ex.DW1/1 that he received the sale consideration, in fact it was the plaintiff No. 3 who received the sale consideration of Rs. 14,20,000/- from the said Smt. Jasleen Kaur. Clearly, the submissions put forth by the CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 25 of 34 defendant do not add up. It was submitted that the defendant, in terms of agreement to sell dated 26th of March 2012; Ex.DW1/1, received a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (from the plaintiff No.1 and her husband), towards part sale consideration (out of total sale consideration of Rs. 28,00,000/-) regarding selling of one flat bearing No. WZ-84, Sant Nagar, New Delhi to the plaintiff No. 3. However, when the DW1 was confronted in cross examination with a Sale Deed dated 23.08.2013 registered on 04.09.2013, Ex.DW1/P1 (as per which the very same property i.e. flat bearing No. WZ-84, Sant Nagar, New Delhi was sold to Smt. Jasleen Kaur), the defendant tried to counter it by submitting that the sale consideration was received by the plaintiff No. 3 and not by him. The submission is liable to be rejected at the first place being contrary to the terms of the agreement to sell dated 26th of March 2012; Ex.DW1/1. The said submission otherwise has no weight as the defendant failed to examine Smt. Jasleen Kaur (who could depose that she had made the payment to the plaintiff No. 3 and not to the defendant). And, even if the contention of the defendant is accepted as correct, it is beyond comprehension how would it negate the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband advanced a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the defendant by way of RTGS from their joint account. There is absolutely no connection between the transaction of loan as alleged by the plaintiffs and transaction of Sale as suggested by the defendant.
Third Transaction of Rs. 5 lakh in Cash on 15th of July 2012
38. The defendant denied taking any loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband on 15th of July 2012. This submission of CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 26 of 34 the defendant is liable to be rejected being contrary to the terms of the agreement dated 23rd of December 2014, Ex.PW1/3A. From reading the contents of the loan agreement dated 23.12.2014, Ex. PW1/3A, it is apparent that the defendant has accepted and acknowledged receiving a total loan amount of Rs. 25 lakh i.e., an amount of Rs. 20 lakh through RTGS transactions and an amount of Rs. 5 lakh in cash from the husband of the plaintiff No. 1.
39. From above discussion this Court concludes that the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from this Court, and that the amount given by the plaintiff's husband to the defendant was not as a loan but as by way of investment, and that the plaintiffs have even earned profit thereon.
40. Before parting with discussion on these issues, it is necessary to take note of one of the objections of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant regarding credibility of PW1, only to reject it outrightly. As already noted, the oral testimony of PW1 is corroborated in material particulars by a large amount of documentary evidence on record whereby the advancement of the loan, the terms of its repayment, and the liability of the defendant have been sufficiently proved and the defendant, on the other hand, has failed to dispute his liability. It is an otherwise settled principle that minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the matter are not material contradictions and evidence of such witness cannot be brushed aside / disbelieved.
41. Both the issues viz. issue Nos. 2 and 3 are decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
CS DJ 4256/2017Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 27 of 34 ISSUE NO. 1
1) Whether there was no cause of action available to the plaintiff to file the present Suit, as alleged by the defendant ? OPD
42. Onus to prove issue No. 1 was on the defendant.
43. It may be observed that the amount in question was transferred to the defendant from a joint account of the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband Late Sh. Subhash Chandra Sachdeva. Later on, the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 expired. The defendant thereafter on the death of husband of the plaintiff No. 1 issued three cheques in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 which on presentation got dishonoured and the plaintiff No. 1 filed the present Suit. It is a matter of record that afterwards the daughter and son of deceased Sh. Subash Chandra Sachdva, namely Smt. Divya Tandon and Sh. Rohit Sachdeva were also impleded in the present Suit as the plaintiffs No. 2 and
3.
44. The present Suit is based on dishonoured cheques drawn by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs have been able to prove the liability of the defendant for an amount of Rs 30,00,000/- towards the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband whereas the defendant has failed to show that he had not availed a loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- from the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband. The plaintiffs have further been able to prove that the defendant, in discharge of the aforesaid liability of Rs. 30,00,000/-, issued three cheques bearing Nos. 431696, 503103 and 503104 (all dated 10.07.2017) in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 which on presentation got dishonoured with remarks 'account closed'. The defendant on the other hand has failed to show that such consideration, as stated in the plaint, does CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 28 of 34 not exist. In other words, the defendant has failed to rebut the statutory presumption (of consideration) provided under Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The defendant as such can not be allowed to say that the cheques in question were not issued by him towards discharge of any liability, or were given as a security.
45. This issue can also be examined from one another angle though not specifically argued before this Court i.e. whether the Suit is not maintainable in the light of Section 214 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. For ready reference the said provision is reproduced hereunder:-
"Section 214. Proof of representative title a condition precedent to recovery through the Courts of debts from debtors of deceased persons.-
(1) No court shall-
(a) pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof, or
(b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled, to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except, on the production, by the person so claiming of-
(i) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant to him of administration to the estate of the deceased, or CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 29 of 34
(ii) a certificate granted under Section 31 or Section 32 of the Administrator General's Act, 1913, (3 of 1913) and having the debt mentioned therein, or
(iii) a succession certificate granted under Part X and having the debt specified therein, or
(iv) a certificate granted under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889, (7 of 1889) or
(v) a certificate granted under Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1827, and, if granted after the first day of May, 1889, having the debt specified therein.
(2) The word "debt" in sub-section (1) includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes."
46. The plain reading of the statute shows that in case a suit is filed under a representative title claiming to be heir of a deceased person, a succession certificate is necessary. However, the factual matrix, as detailed supra, shows that the suit is primarily filed on the basis of three dishonoured cheques bearing Nos. 431696, 503103 and 503104 (all dated 10.07.2017) drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd. by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 in her individual name for total sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-. As already discussed, the plaintiffs have been able to prove that the aforesaid three cheques were issued by the defendant in discharge of his liability for an amount of Rs 30,00,000/- towards the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband.
47. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Bai Sarda v. Patel, Keshavlal Jotiram;
1967 SCC OnLine Guj 42, in the similar circumstances, held that the suit CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 30 of 34 filed by the plaintiff therein was maintainable even without a succession certificate. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:-
"6. The provisions of this Section prohibit the Court from passing a decree against a debtor of a deceased for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person. It is clear that the claim contemplated by the section is a claim made by a person in the capacity of and as a legal representative of the deceased creditor. In the present case the suit was based on the specific contract between the parties. It is no doubt true that the initial amount was loaned by the husband of the plaintiff and that was the consideration for executing the pro-note Ex. 26 by the opponent. Under the Indian Contract Act the consideration may flow from a third party. The execution of pro- note Ex. 26 created a novation between the plaintiff and the defendant and the original contract was substituted by a new one. The petitioner was claiming on the basis of the contract which was executed in her favour, and in her own independent capacity and not as an heir of the deceased creditor. It is evident that in these circumstances no succession certificate is required to be produced before the Court in order to enable it to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. According to the trial Court a succession certificate was necessary because the consideration of the pro-note on which the suit was based was the initial amount loaned by the husband of the plaintiff, and that the suit of the plaintiff was to recover the said amount loaned by her husband. The trial Court also held that the CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 31 of 34 pro-note Ex. 26 was only an acknowledgment of the debt by the defendant. The learned trial Judge has failed to notice that the consideration of the contract may flow from a third party. The pro- note Ex. 26 clearly indicates that it is a promissory note and not an acknowledgment. It is also not correct to say that the suit is filed to recover the amount due to the husband of the plaintiff but the suit is filed to recover the amount due on the basis of the specific contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The provisions of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act cannot apply to such a case.
7. Next it should also be noted that Section 214 of the Succession Act prohibits the Court from passing a decree unless a succession certificate is produced in the case. In this case, the learned Judge has raised an issue as to whether the plaintiff can Institute a suit without obtaining a succession certificate and ordered that the plaintiff should file the certificate within two months and failing to do so ordered the suit to be dismissed. This order is obviously erroneous and contrary to the express provisions of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act which only requires the production of succession certificate at any time before the decree is passed.
8. The result is that in view of the fact that the plaintiff has filed the suit in her own capacity as the person in whose favour a pro-note was executed, the order passed by the trial Judge requiring the plaintiff to produce the succession certificate is erroneous. I, therefore, set aside the order requiring the plaintiff to obtain CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 32 of 34 succession certificate and direct that the learned trial judge should dispose the suit according to law."
(Underlined by me)
48. The present Suit filed on the basis of cheques drawn in favour of the plaintiff No. 1, is per se not a suit in representative capacity as an heir of Late Sh. Subhash Chandra Sachdeva and as such there is no question of invoking Section 214 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. Even otherwise, this is a fact that all the legal heirs are impleaded as plaintiffs in the present Suit.
49. As such it can not be said that there was no cause of action available to the plaintiffs to file the present Suit.
50. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 44) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount as claimed, or any other amount ? OPP
51. Onus to prove issue No. 4 was on the plaintiffs.
52. The above discussion shows that the plaintiffs by way of preponderance of probabilities have been able to prove the liability of the defendant for an amount of Rs 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh) towards the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband. The plaintiffs have further been able to prove that the defendant, in discharge of the aforesaid liability of Rs. 30,00,000/-, issued three cheques bearing Nos. 431696, 503103 and 503104 (all dated 10.07.2017) in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 which on presentation got dishonoured with remarks 'account closed'. It is an admitted fact that the CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 33 of 34 defendant has not refunded the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs as such are entitled to an amount of Rs 30,00,000/- from the defendant.
53. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 55) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, as claimed, if so, at what rate and for what period ? OPP
54. Since the aforesaid amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh) has been unreasonably withheld by the defendant for a considerable period, in the considered view of this court, plaintiffs are also entitled to a reasonable interest on the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh). In the facts of the present case, in the considered opinion of this court, the interest of justice would be served if the plaintiffs are granted pendente lite interest and future interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
RELIEF
55. As a net result of the aforesaid, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh) along with costs as well as pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
56. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be Digitally signed consigned to the record room. by ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA Date:
Announced in the open court on this 3rd day of February, 2025. 2025.02.03 18:12:33 This judgment consists of 34 number of signed pages. +0530 (Abhishek Srivastava) District Judge-05, Central, THC, Delhi CS DJ 4256/2017 Chander Prabha Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. Jerry Prince Williams Dated 03.02.2025 Page no. 34 of 34