JAIBEER SINGH Vs. JAI BHAGWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned ADJ-II (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RCA No.02/2014, whereby the first appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant in the suit to assail the judgment rendered by the learned Civil Judge in CS No.61A/2013 filed by the respondent/plaintiff to seek recovery has been dismissed, and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for Rs.2,40,500/- along with pendentilite and future interest @ 18% p.a. till realisation has been upheld.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,40,000/- on the ground that he had advanced a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant/defendant on friendly terms by three cheques dated 11.05.2005 for Rs.50,000/-; 24.09.2005 for Rs.50,000/-, and; 25.08.2006 for Rs.1,00,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that the assurance given by the defendant was that the said amount would be returned alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., but the defendant failed to liquidate the outstanding amount and avoided its liability on one pretext or the other.

(3.) The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 23.02.2007 to the defendant demanding the outstanding amount. The said legal notice was responded to by the appellant/defendant by setting up a defence that, in fact, it was the plaintiff who was in need of a loan to save his business; he had asked the appellant/defendant to arrange for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as a friendly loan; that the appellant/defendant had advanced a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff in instalment on different occasions, i.e. Rs.3,25,000/- on 01.04.2004; Rs.50,000/- on 06.04.2004; Rs.30,000/- on 14.04.2004; Rs.1,00,000/- on 02.06.2004; Rs.65,000/- on 02.11.2004 and Rs.50,000/- on 11.12.2004; the said amount had been given in cash; the plaintiff had put his signatures on some documents pertaining to the said loan amount, which the appellant claimed would be produced at the appropriate time. The appellant/defendant also claimed that the factum of the loan amount being advanced to the plaintiff was in the knowledge of the entire society, i.e. the relatives and family members.