SUMIT JUNEJA & ANR Vs. RAM KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the suit, and who are the legal heirs of late defendant no. 1. Late defendant no. 1 was the husband of defendant no. 3 and the father of defendant no. 2. The defendant no. 2 is the appellant no.1 and defendant no. 3 is the appellant no. 2 in this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the trial court has decreed the suit for recovery of moneys filed by the respondent/plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 7,11,187/- along with interest at 9% per annum on account of such moneys being invested by the respondent/plaintiff with the defendant no.1, and this amount was agreed to be repaid back by all the defendants, but was not repaid, and hence the suit.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that he had been regularly investing in various firms being run by defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts, mutual funds, bonds etc. With respect to such amounts invested in different firms of the defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja, the respondent/plaintiff pleaded that he received the maturity amounts from time to time. It was then pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff that thereafter defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja/father of the appellant no.1 and husband of the appellant no. 2, approached the respondent/plaintiff to invest moneys in M/s Jaico Securities of which defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja was the sole proprietor. It was pleaded that the payments which were received by defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja were received in the name of the appellant no. 1/defendant no. 2. In the plaint, it is further pleaded that all the defendants agreed to pay the amounts due as also the interest at 1% per month, and that the defendants paid Rs. 1,04,000/- as interest till 31.10.2008. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the three cheques for payment of part of the liability were issued by late defendant no.1 being Cheque No. 272876 dated 04.12.2008 for Rs. 44,054.15, Cheque No. 272877 dated 09.12.2008 for Rs. 50,175/- and Cheque No. 377555 dated 17.06.2009 for Rs. 41,958.84. These cheques which were presented to the bank were returned dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds" and "payment stopped by the drawer". It was pleaded that the appellants/defendants visited the respondent/plaintiff on 31.05.2010, and assured to repay the entire amount very soon, but the appellants/defendants failed to pay anything, and on the contrary started extending threats to the respondent/plaintiff and his family members. Therefore, pleading that a total sum of Rs. 8,55,424/- was due to the respondent/plaintiff with Rs. 7,11,187/- as principal amount and Rs. 1,44,237/- towards interest till 30.06.2010 with interest at 1% per month, the subject suit was filed.

(3.) As already stated above, there were three defendants in the suit. Defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja was the father of the appellant no.1/defendant no. 2 and the husband of the appellant no. 2/defendant no. 3. All the defendants in the suit filed a joint written statement. In the written statement there was general and complete denial that there was ever any investment made by the respondent/plaintiff of Rs. 7,11,187/- in M/s Jaico Securities of defendant no. 1. It was also denied that the amounts totalling to Rs. 7,11,187/- were received in the personal name of the appellant no.1/defendant no.2/son/Sh. Sumit Juneja. It was pleaded that in fact the respondent/plaintiff was doing business in Forward Trades with the appellant no.1/defendant no.2, and since losses were caused in this business, the respondent/plaintiff issued two Cheques bearing no. 313371 and 313373 for the amounts of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively, in favour of the appellant no. 1/defendant no. 2 and the same were dishonored. It was pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff became liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,67,000/- to the appellant no.1/defendant no.2 on account of losses in the Forward Trade business. It was pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff had admitted his liability in writing on 20.12.2008, and therefore no amount could be claimed by the respondent/plaintiff from the defendants in the suit. The suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.