SARDAR SARWAN SINGH Vs. BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs.22,40,250/-. The case of the plaintiff, who is a farmer-cum- teacher, is that the defendant approached him with a proposal for sending the boys to the foreign countries for study purposes. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.15.45 lakhs to the defendant to send his son to U.S.A. for study and employment. The payment was made on different dates between 16th September, 2002 and 12th December, 2003. Later, on realizing that the defendant had cheated him on the pretext of sending his son to U.S.A. for study and business purpose, the plaintiff requested the defendant to return back the money. The defendant thereupon issued two cheques one dated 20 th December, 2004 for Rs.5 lakhs and the other dated 26th May, 2005 for Rs.6 lakhs both drawn on Syndicate Bank, Rohini, Delhi. The cheques, when present to the bank, were dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account of the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, has claimed the aforesaid amount of Rs.15.45 lakhs which he had paid to the defendant along with interest therein @ 18% p.a. amounting to Rs.6,95,250/- thereby making a total of Rs.22,40,250/-.

(2.) THE defendant filed the written statement contesting the suit. It was alleged in the written statement that the defendant had returned a sum of Rs.14 lakhs to the plaintiff after deducting Rs.1,45,000/- towards commission and expenditure. THE case set up in the written statement is that in fact the defendant had facilitated purchase of a property by the plaintiff in Delhi and had paid Rs. 12 lakhs as advance for purchase of the said property on behalf of the plaintiff. THE plaintiff thereafter was unable to get the deed registered on account of his inability to raise further funds required for executing the sale deed. THE defendant in good faith arranged for cancellation of the deal and in anticipation of receiving back the advance he agreed to return Rs.12 lakhs the plaintiff despite the fact that he was not bound to arrange to return the money which the plaintiff had paid.

(3.) THE onus of proving this issue lies upon the defendant. No evidence at all has been produced by the defendant. THE alleged payment has been denied by the plaintiff. In his affidavit by way of evidence, the plaintiff has stated that the defendant had neglected to pay the amount due and payable to him along with interest. THE issue is, therefore, decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. ISSUE No. 2