INDU PATNI Vs. KAMAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dtd. 11/9/2017 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Durg, in civil suit No.680-B/2013 whereby the money suit was decreed for Rs.11.00 lacs in favour of the plaintiff. The present appeal is by the defendant.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit on 9/4/2013 claiming Rs.11.00 lacs from the appellant/defendant. In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that prior to 5-6 years from the date of filing of the suit, a demand of Rs.15.00 lacs towards loan was made by the appellant/defendant. Accordingly, the said amount of Rs.15.00 lacs was given by the plaintiff to the defendant with a promise that it would be returned in 2-3 years. The plaintiff further pleaded that no receipts were taken for such grant of loan, as the relationship between them was cordial like brother and sister. The plaintiff also pleaded that when the amount was not returned, a demand was made in the year 2010 and the defendant promised to return the same during the month of March, 2010. Having not returned the same till March, 2010 again demand was made. At that point of time the defendant stated that she would be selling her certain property and immediately after such sale she would return the amount of Rs.15.00 lacs. It is stated that since the date of sale of property was uncertain as such on 10/4/2010 the defendant agreed to return the amount and executed a document that after the sale of property she would return the amount. According to the plaintiff, in the month of March, 2012 one of the property was sold by the defendant and a cheque of Rs.4.00 lacs was given by her to the plaintiff in lieu of payment of loan, which was deposited in the account of the plaintiff on 31/3/2012. In respect of the remaining amount of Rs.11.00 lacs, despite promise, the amount was not paid. Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of amount of Rs.11.00 lacs along with interest.

(3.) The defendant denied the plaint averments and stated that she had never availed the loan of Rs.15.00 lacs from the plaintiff. It was further stated that they have not suffered any loss in the business, therefore, there was no question of availing of loan to discharge their liability. The defendant also stated that the plaintiff got executed a document in the year 2010 by committing fraud with an assurance that certain landed properties would be purchased and since the relationship between them was cordial, she signed the document. According to the defendant, a cheque of Rs.4.00 lacs was received by the plaintiff on the assurance that the same would be given as advance for purchase of land for which a document was initially executed and thereby committed fraud. On the said background the defendant contended that the suit was wrongly decreed by the Court below in favour of the plaintiff, which needs interference of this Court.