VENI MEHTA Vs. UMA SHANKAR SITANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has instituted the present suit for recovery of Rs. 21,90,000/ - along with pendente -lite and future interest. Case of the plaintiff as set up in the plaint is as under :

(2.) THE defendant was introduced to the plaintiff by a common family friend. Thereafter, he approached her for a loan of Rs. 25 lacs urging compelling family exigencies assuring to return it within six months along with interest @ 24% per annum. She advanced the loan of Rs. 25 lacs by issuing cheque No.441417 dated 05.12.2005 drawn on ING Vysya Bank, in the presence of her husband - - Mr.Ved Prakash Mehta. The said cheque was duly encashed by the defendant. In the first week of May, 2006, she requested the defendant to pay back the entire loan amount with interest. To show his bonafide, the defendant made part payment of Rs. 5 lacs vide cheque No. 022026 dated 19.05.2006 in her favour. Acceding to the request of the defendant to give him time to pay back the remaining amount, six months period was given. In December, 2007, again, the defendant was requested to pay back the balance amount along with interest. Again, the defendant made a payment of Rs. 5 lacs vide cheque No.180529 dated 13.12.2007 and requested for more time to make the balance payment. The defendant, thereafter, failed to make the payment despite various requests. Legal notice dated 08.07.2010 was served upon the defendant. Hence the present suit.

(3.) FURTHER case of the defendant is that the plaintiff or her husband did not turn up to occupy the rented accommodation. In the month of April, 2006, he cancelled the oral understanding and declined to give possession of the portion of the house. The plaintiff and her husband, thereafter, pleaded for refund of the amount. He being a God fearing person agreed to refund Rs. 5 lacs out of Rs. 25 lacs and issued a cheque bearing No.022026 dated 19.05.2006 in favour of the plaintiff. Again, after some time, the plaintiff and her husband started demanding more money from him which he declined to give. When the plaintiff and her husband put pressure on him through relatives and friends, he agreed to refund another amount of Rs. 5 lacs on the assurance that no further demand for return of the money would be made. Accordingly, a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs bearing No.180529 dated 13.12.2007 was issued in favour of the plaintiff, which was duly credited.