GURMESH KAUR Vs. CHANDER KALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS have filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,05,000/- against the defendants, pleading the following cause of action. Plaintiff No.1 is the mother and plaintiff No.2 is a sister of defendant No.2. It is alleged that the husband of plaintiff No.1 was posted at Kullu in Posts and Telegraph Department in the year 1960. Plaintiff No.1 accompanied him to Kullu and they started living there. Defendant No.2, who is the son of plaintiff No.1, married defendant No.1, who is a native of Kullu District, in the year 1988. When the husband of plaintiff No.1 died, she started living with the defendants. In the year 1988, plaintiff No.2, the sister of defendant No.2, got employed as Air Hostess. Plaintiff No.1 and the defendants used to live in a rented accommodation at Kullu. Also Defendants No.1 and 2 did not have any permanent source of income. Defendant No.2 used Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? to deal in sale and purchase of second-hand cars, while defendant No.1 was only a housewife. They approached plaintiff No.2, the sister of defendant No.2, to lend money for the purchase of a piece of land for the construction of a house and also to construct house on that piece of land. Plaintiff No.2, out of pity and also on account of the fact that her mother, i.e. plaintiff No.1, lived with the defendants, agreed to lend money to the defendants with the condition that the same will be returned to her on demand. In June, 1997, plaintiff No.2 paid an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- in cash for the purchase of 5 biswas land, comprised in Khasra Nos. 963.838 and 965/838, situate in Mauza Mohal. The land was purchased in the name of defendant No.1, because she is a bonafide agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, from June, 1997 to September, 2003, plaintiff No.2 paid a sum of Rs.7,77,000/- to defendant No.2 in parts through cheques and drafts. Some of the cheques/drafts were in the name of defendant No.2 and some others in the name of plaintiff No.1, who handed over the contents of those cheques and drafts to the defendants for construction of the house. In December, 2003, plaintiff No.2 demanded the money from the defendants, as she wanted to buy a house at Bombay where she lives with her husband. The defendants refused to pay the money. So, the plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of the loan amount, the total of which, according to them, comes to Rs.11,57,000/-.

(2.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit. They alleged that substantial claim of the plaintiffs was barred by limitation. It was alleged that the suit was not maintainable in the form in which it was laid. Further, it was stated that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. Plea of estoppel was also raised. On merits, it was denied that the money was lent by plaintiff No.2 to the defendants, as alleged. It was alleged that the mother of defendant No.1 was a rich woman, who owned landed property as also an orchard, and that it was she who had lent the money for the purchase of the site. It was stated that the site of the house was purchased only for a sum of Rs.77,000/- and this fact itself belied the plaintiffs' claim that an amount of Rs.3,87,000/- was advanced for the purchase of the site. Suit was alleged to have been overvalued for the purpose of jurisdiction.

(3.) THEREAFTER , evidence was led by the plaintiffs. On 23.5.2005, when the case was listed for recording the evidence of the defendants, nobody appeared for them and so they were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte, and on the same day ex-parte arguments were heard and judgment reserved. On 26.5.2005, the suit was partly decreed ex-parte and a decree for 6,35,000/- with proportionate cost was passed in favour of plaintiff No.2 and against both the defendants. The defendants then moved an application for setting aside ex-parte decree. That was allowed, vide order dated 20.10.2005. Thereafter, the defendants examined three witnesses and closed their evidence. Plaintiffs made a statement, through their counsel, that they did not want to lead any evidence in rebuttal.