SPARROW AGRO FOREST LTD Vs. BABY JASMEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of a common judgment delivered by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby four different suits for recovery of money filed by the plaintiffs who happen to be the members of the same family have been decreed. The facts giving rise to the institution of the suits and the present appeals may be briefly stated as under:

(2.) The appellant company appears to have invited deposits from the public at large on the representation held out to the depositors that the company was financially sound and the investment made in it secure. Acting upon the said representation, the plaintiffs appear to have deposited a sum of Rs.1.25 lacs each, the receipt whereof was acknowledged by the defendant appellant in terms of four deposit receipts issued in their favour. The receipts promised to the depositors maturity amount of Rs.2.50 lacs on each one of these receipts payable on 1st June, 2001. The plaintiffs' case as set out in the suits filed by them was that despite repeated requests made to the appellant company, the maturity value of these deposits was not paid to them forcing the plaintiffs to seek redress from the court. In the suits, the plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs.2.50 lacs each representing the maturity value of the deposits apart from a sum of Rs.1,15,625/- representing interest @ 25% per annum from the date of the maturity of the deposits till the date of the filing of the suits. The amount claimed in each suit thus rose to Rs.3,65,625/- upon which the plaintiffs claimed future and pendente lite interest @25% per annum.

(3.) After securing leave to defend the suits, the defendant company filed a written statement in which it was intei alia alleged that the receipts relied upon by the plaintiffs were forged. It was also alleged that the suits were a counter blast to a suit for specific performance filed by the company in regard to certain property which one of the plaintiffs Mrs. Virender Kaur had agreed to sell for a consideration of Rs.24.5 lacs. It was further alleged that the said Smt. Virender Kaur had, with the help of her husband Gurmit Singh, stolen the record and other valuable articles from the office of the defendant company in September, 2002 which incident had been, according to the defendant company, reported to the police also. It was further alleged by the defendant company that maximum amount which it used to entertain from depositors was Rs.50,000/- per person and that no deposits like the ones alleged by the plaintiffs had been made by them at any stage.