* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 428/2008
MR.RAVI CHAND ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.R.P.Sharma, Adv. and
Mr.Pankaj Raj, Adv.
versus
MR.PRAMOD KUMAR AGGARWAL ...... Respondent
Through: None.
DATE OF DECISION:
% 17.11.2008
Coram:
* Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. On 5th November 2008 the Trial Court record was
requisitioned through special messenger. The same is
available and has been considered in the light of the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.4,35,000/- alleging that on six different dates being
19.9.2003, 20.9.2003, 22.9.2003, 27.9.2003, 4.10.2003 and
RFA 428/2008 Page 1 of 8
7.10.2003 he had advanced Rs.50,000/- on each date to the
appellant by way of loan for which proper receipts were
executed by the appellant and that the loan was to carry
interest @15% per annum. Alleging that in spite of notice
being served no payment was made to return the loan, suit
was filed to claim the principal sum of Rs.3 lakhs and
interest thereon till the date when suit was filed i.e.
13.9.2006.
3. The defence of the appellant was that he had
received Rs.3 lakhs by way of loan from his nephew Balram
who while advancing the loan obtained his signatures on six
receipts which were blank. Appellant stated that he
returned the loan to Balram in the year 2004 but did not
take back the receipts because of being close relatives.
4. In a nutshell the appellant denied having
executed any receipts in favour of the plaintiff.
5. The six receipts have been proved by the plaintiff
as PW-1/1 to PW-1/6. The plaintiff proved the partition deed
as Ex.PW-1/7 which he claimed was handed over to him by
the appellant as security when loan was advanced. Under
the partition deed certain immovable properties stand
RFA 428/2008 Page 2 of 8
assigned to the appellant. The respondent also proved as
Ex.PW-1/8 the legal notice sent to the appellant under
registered post vide postal receipt Ex.PW-1/9 and in proof of
the notice being served upon the appellant proved the
acknowledgment card Ex.PW-1/10. Suit has been decreed
with interest @9% per annum from date of suit till
realization.
6. The contention of the appellant that the receipts
Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/6 do not record the name of the
person to whom the receipts have been executed and hence
a conclusion should be drawn that the receipts were never
issued to the plaintiff has been repelled by the learned Trial
Judge on account of the fact that the appellant took
inconsistent stands while deposing as his witness. He stated
that he had signed the receipts blank, which deposition we
note is in harmony with his defence pleaded in the written
statement. Simultaneously he denied his signatures
thereon. The learned Trial Judge has held that the appellant
is obviously not speaking the truth. Learned Trial Judge has
held that the appellant ought to have examined his nephew
Balram and by not doing so has weakened his defence. But,
what has been held as fatal to the defence of the appellant is
RFA 428/2008 Page 3 of 8
the non-explanation by the appellant as to how the original
partition deed, Ex.PW-1/7, under which an immovable
property stood assigned to the appellant reached the hands
of the plaintiff. The original document being in the
possession of the plaintiff has been held by the learned Trial
Judge to be good evidence of a loan transaction between the
parties with the document being handed over to the plaintiff
as a security. Admittedly, the appellant never refuted the
legal notice Ex.PW-1/8 (in spite of being held to be served
with the same) where from the conclusion drawn is that the
appellant did not state, what he did in the written statement,
at the first opportunity.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has re-agitated
the plea that the six receipts are not executed in favour of
the plaintiff.
8. We are surprised at the plea urged for the reason
each receipt records as under:-
“Received by Ravi Chand son of Late Shri Suraj Bhan
from Pramod Kumar Aggarwal son of Shri Mahavir
Prasad Aggarwal cash 50,000 (Rs.Fifty Thousand
only).”
RFA 428/2008 Page 4 of 8
9. The argument urged runs in the teeth of the
contents of the receipts Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/6.
10. We note that the question of the receipts being
signed blank stands negated from the receipts themselves
inasmuch as the appellant has signed the receipts across the
revenue stamps affixed at the bottom of the receipts and
has also signed the receipts at the place the amount has
been filled up. This appears to be for the reason the receipts
are as per printed proforma and the beneficiary of the
receipt i.e. the plaintiff took care to obtain the signatures of
the appellant at the place where the sum stands recorded.
11. A second contention is urged that the partition
deed, Ex.PW-1/7 was handed over by Balram to the
appellant. In respect of this plea we note that in his
testimony the plaintiff has categorically deposed that the
said document was handed over to him by the defendant
when he took the loan. Learned counsel for the appellant
has not been able to show that this assertion of the plaintiff
was refuted by cross-examining the plaintiff. Indeed, the
testimony of the plaintiff on this point has gone
unchallenged.
RFA 428/2008 Page 5 of 8
12. Learned counsel for the appellant next urges that
the legal notice Ex.PW-1/8 was never received by him and
points out the testimony of the appellant to the effect that
the A.D. card Ex.PW-1/10 does not bear his signatures.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant does not
dispute that the address at which the notice Ex.PW-1/8 has
been issued is correct.
14. Postal receipt Ex.PW-1/9 shows that the notice
dated 30.8.2006, Ex.PW-1/8, was posted at the correct
postal address of the appellant. A.D. card, Ex.PW-1/10,
shows that the postal authorities returned the same to the
person who had issued the notice. At the place where the
recipient i.e. the noticee has to pen his signatures on the
A.D. card we find some initials.
15. Ex.PW-1/9 and Ex.PW-1/10 are good evidence of
the legal notice being served upon the appellant. Thus, non-
reply thereto is a circumstance against the appellant.
16. The final argument of learned counsel for the
appellant is that the decree has been drawn for an excessive
cost evidenced by the fact that while filling up the costs,
towards stamp paper on which the plaint was drawn,
RFA 428/2008 Page 6 of 8
Rs.18,465.00 have been awarded. Counsel urges that the
suit amount was Rs.4,35,000/- as per which, counsel urges
that the court fee payable comes to approximately
Rs.5,000/-.
17. As noted above, the plaintiff sued on six different
loans advanced on six different dates and since the
defendant was the same person and subject matter being
same, in one suit six loan transactions were founded as the
action. The plaintiff correctly valued the suit for purposes of
court fee by recording that court fee payable would be as
under:-
Date Principal Interest Total C.Fee paid
1. Receipt dt: Rs.50,000/- Rs.22,500/- Rs.72,500/- Rs.3076/-
19.9.2003
2. Receipt dt: Rs.50,000/- Rs.22,500/- Rs.72,500/- Rs.3076/-
20.9.2003
3. Receipt dt: Rs.50,000/- Rs.22,500/- Rs.72,500/- Rs.3076/-
22.9.2003
4. Receipt dt: Rs.50,000/- Rs.22,500/- Rs.72,500/- Rs.3076/-
27.9.2003
RFA 428/2008 Page 7 of 8
5. Receipt dt: Rs.50,000/- Rs.22,500/- Rs.72,500/- Rs.3076/-
4.10.2003
6. Receipt dt: Rs.50,000/- Rs.22,500/- Rs.72,500/- Rs.3076/-
7.10.2003
18. No other contention has been urged. With
reference to the record of the learned Trial Judge we find
that each and every contention is worthless. We dismiss the
appeal in limine and hence no costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
November 17, 2008
Dharmender
RFA 428/2008 Page 8 of 8