Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by Smt. Pushpa Devi (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff") seeking recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Mrs. Nirmala Bisht (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant").

PLAINT

2. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant is resident of the same locality where the plaintiff lives and was introduced to the plaintiff as a Principal of a Government School by some neighbour. The defendant approached the plaintiff in the month of September, 2013 for financial help of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only). Considering the friendly relations with the defendant, the plaintiff arranged amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only). The defendant assured that she will return the same within 3-4 months with interest. The defendant paid the interest only upto December 2013. After various reminders and visits, the defendant in order to discharge her liability issued a cheque bearing No. 05198 dated 16.02.2014 drawn on Central Bank of India, Badarpur, New Delhi, of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff towards the friendly loan. Plaintiff presented the above mentioned cheque for encashment to its Banker i.e. Central Bank of India, Badarpur, New Delhi. However, the said cheque was dishonoured for the reason "Funds Digitally signed by (Neetu Nagar) NEETU JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:

                                                                                     Digitally
                                                                                     signed by
(Neetu Nagar)                                                                        NEETU
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East                                                        NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 26.09.2024                                             Page 3 of 46     NAGAR Date:
                                                                                     2024.09.26
                                                                                     16:22:31
                                                                                     +0530
 CS SCJ 171/17                                    Puspha Devi Vs. Nirmala Bisht

                            WRITTEN STATEMENT

ing evidence. The burden of proof was however on the person who wanted to rebut the presumption.

31. Let us now see whether the defendant has been able to rebut the presumption or not. The defence of the defendant in the present case is basically two fold. It is the case of the defen- dant that she has received Rs.10,000/- as friendly loan from the plaintiff and same has already been paid but the plaintiff kept on charging exorbitant interest at the rate of 15 to 20% thus extract- ing more and more money from the defendant on the basis of the loan amount of Rs.10,000/- taken 7 years ago from the date of filing of the suit which on the date of filing of the present suit is time-barred. However, it is nowhere clear from the entire evi- dence of the defendant as to the exact date when the defendant has taken the loan of Rs.10,000/- and paid the same. Nothing in writing has been proved on record regarding the said transaction or the interest amount, if any given by the defendant to the plain- tiff from time to time. It is further asserted by the defendant that the plaintiff also took five blank cheques of Bank of India, Par- liament Street, New Delhi from the defendant as a security. How- ever, there is nothing on record to prove the same. Even the pass- book in order to confirm the said bank account of the defendant has not been placed on record by the defendant. DW1 is the daughter of the original defendant who deposed that her mother NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 26.09.2024 Page 31 of 46 Date: 2024.09.26 16:24:43 +0530 CS SCJ 171/17 Puspha Devi Vs. Nirmala Bisht used to talk to her husband regarding her financial needs where as, it is pleaded in the written statement that the defendant told about the same to her husband who then intimated the same to her son-in-law. Hence, it is never the case of defendant that the defendant told about the transaction to her daughter. Then she has deposed that her mother did not tell her about the entire transaction that took place between the plaintiff and her mother. She further testified that her mother told her that she took Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff and that she will be paying the same. She deposed categorically that no transaction of Rs.10,000/- ever took place in her presence. Then she has de- posed that her mother never paid the amount Rs.10,000/-to the plaintiff. Whereas, it is the case of defendant that Rs.10,000/- was paid by the original defendant to the plaintiff. Hence, amount of Rs. 10,000/- stood paid by the defendant to the plain- tiff is doubtful. Then she has deposed that her mother used to pay interest thereon to the plaintiff as informed to her which was to the extent of 15% to 25%. She has further deposed that her mother used to pay interest amount to the tune of Rs.1500/- and Rs.2500/- at times as demanded by the plaintiff in different months as stated by her mother. It seems that the testimony of this witness is based on conjectures and is hearsay. It is next de- posed by her that the plaintiff got her mother pledge her jew- ellery. However, DW-1 never made any efforts to claim the said NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 26.09.2024 Page 32 of 46 Date: 2024.09.26 16:24:49 +0530 CS SCJ 171/17 Puspha Devi Vs. Nirmala Bisht jewellery items from Anil jewellers. Moreover, Anil jewellers has also not been examined in order to substantiate her version. The defendant has also examined her husband namely Mr. Shiv Anand as DW2 who has deposed that his mother-in-law inti- mated about the money transactions to him and not to her father- in-law which is totally in contradiction with the defence of the defendant. Then he has deposed that he is not aware of the exact items of jewellery belonging to her mother-in-law which were got pledged by the plaintiff with Anil Jeweller. Perusal of the re- ceipts Ex. DW2/X1 shows that it is not mentioned therein that the jewellery items were pledged. The defence of the defendant in this regard thus is completely unbelievable. Hence, the version of the defendant regarding taking loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff has to be discarded completely being not worthy of any credence.

50. In view of the above decision, the present suit is dis- missed with costs.

51. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

52. File be consigned to record room after due compli- ance.

Announced in the open                                         Digitally
                                                              signed by
court today i.e. 26.09.2024                         NEETU
                                                              NEETU
                                                              NAGAR

(This judgment contains 46 pages                    NAGAR     Date:
                                                              2024.09.26
                                                              16:25:58
signed by the undersigned)                                    +0530


                                                 (Neetu Nagar)
                                            JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East
                                              Saket Courts: New Delhi




(Neetu Nagar)
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East