High Court
Case Details
RSA-336-2025 ( 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR GARH(cid:1) 133 (cid:1) Meena Bansal RSA-336 Date of De 336-2025 (O&M) e of Decision:20.08.2025(cid:1) ... Appellant Versus Smt.Kailash Tan h Taneja since deceased (through her L h her Lrs) and others (cid:1) CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL ... Respondents Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate (cid:1) Present: Mr. for the appellant. for t Ms. Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, Advoc for respondents. for r Advocate *** *** (cid:1) AMARINDER S RAL) DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The defendant is the appellant The before this Court challenging t ging the judgment and de nd decree dated 06.07.2022 passed by
Legal Reasoning
ssed by the learned trial Court decreei ecreeing the suit for reco r recovery filed by the respondents dents-plaintiffs and the judgment dat nt dated 16.04.2024 pass passed by the learned 1st Appella ppellate Court vide which the appe e appeal preferred by her y her against the aforesaid judgment gment and decree passed by the learn e learned trial Court, has b , has been dismissed. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case ar Succ ase are, that the son of the responde spondent No.1-plaintiff, na tiff, namely Pardeep Taneja, shared c ared close relations with the defenda fendant- Abhay Kumar B mar Bansal, as both families had res ad resided together in the same rent e rented house for several several years, during which it came to ame to the knowledge of the responde spondent No.1-plaintiff th tiff that the defendant was not in a t in a sound financial position. In t . In the second week of ek of December 2009, the defenda efendant, along with Pardeep Tane Taneja, approached respo d respondent No.1-plaintiff seeking a f ing a friendly loan of Rs.10,00,000/- - for PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.01 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-336-2025 ( 2025 (O&M) -2- his business, wh ss, whereupon he issued cheque No. o.310987 dated 14.12.2009 for R for Rs. 5,75,000/- drawn drawn on Bank of Baroda, GT R GT Road, Jalandhar, in favor of t r of the defendant, which which was credited to the account of unt of his firm, M/s Dhanraj Industri stries, and thereafter, c fter, cheque No.310988 dated 20.03.2 20.03.2010 for Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn rawn on the same bank in ank in favour of the defendant, which which was also credited in the account count of his firm, thereby hereby lending a total sum of Rs. 6,7 s. 6,75,000/- as a friendly loan witho without any stipulation o ation of interest, repayable as and w and when demanded. Subsequently, t ntly, the defendant repaid repaid Rs. 3,50,000/- to the plaintiff iff through two cheques, i.e., cheq ., cheque No.000311 date dated 23.06.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/ 0,000/- and cheque No.000312 dat 2 dated 06.07.2012 for for Rs. 1,50,000/-, leaving the the balance outstanding. Since t ince the defendant-Abhay Abhay Kumar Bansal has expired, pired, the present appellant-defenda efendant, having inherited erited the estate of Abhay Kumar Ba ar Bansal, is jointly liable to repay t epay the balance amount. ount. However, despite repeated req ted requests and service of legal noti al notice dated 19.03.2013 3.2013, no payment was made. Hen . Hence, the present suit was filed f filed for recovery of Rs. f Rs.3,25,000/- along with interest fro est from the date of filing till the date e date of realization. 3. Upon issuance of summons, appella Upo ppellant-defendant appeared through ough her counsel and filed d filed written statement wherein he ein he has raised preliminary objectio bjections with regard to m d to maintainability of suit, concealme cealment of facts, cause of action, loc locus standi of plaintif laintiff to file the present suit. It was
Legal Reasoning
It was submitted that appellan-defenda efendant has never inherite inherited the assets of M/s Dhanraj Ind raj Industries and defendants no. 3 and . 3 and 4 are married daug d daughters and living separately. Mor y. Moreover, this suit is time barred a rred and respondents-plain plaintiffs cannot club two loan tran n transactions in this case. Further it ther it is stated that Pard t Pardeep Taneja was not even aut en authorized to file the present su ent suit. Furthermore, bot re, both the parties were living togethe ogether from more than 20 years but t s but the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.01 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-336-2025 ( 2025 (O&M) -3- story qua the len he lending of money is concocted one ed one. Lastly, the remaining avermen verments of the plaint a de t a denied by all defendants. 4. On the basis of pleadings, learned t On t rned trial Court had framed as many many as six issues includi ncluding relief. On appreciation of ora of oral as well as documentary eviden evidence produced before before it, the learned trial Court dec rt decreed the suit of the responden ondents- plaintiffs for reco or recovery of Rs.3,25,000/- vide judg e judgment and decree dated 06.07.20 .07.2022 and the appeal pr l preferred by the appellant-defenda efendant No.1 was also dismissed by t ed by the learned 1st Appe Appellate Court vide judgment dat nt dated 16.04.2024 and decree of t e of the learned trial Cou al Court was modified with the observa bservation that the plaintiff shall also ll also be entitled to interes interest @6% per annum from the da the date of filing of the suit till decisi decision and future interes interest @6% till realization on the am the amount of Rs.3,25,000/-. Hence, t ence, the regular second ap ond appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Lear ellant-defendant No.1 contends that t that the appellant is a housewife and was not aware o are of the business affairs of her la her late husband. The res he respondents-plaintiffs, with mala f ala fide intention, filed a false recove recovery suit even though hough the appellant’s husband, as Pro as Proprietor of M/s Dhanraj Industri dustries, used to make ad ake advance cash payments against th inst the book entries maintained by t d by the respondents-plain plaintiff and her family members. It ers. It is submitted that the suit is barr is barred under Section 21 ion 214 of Indian Succession Act, as ct, as the succession certificate has n has not been produced. F ced. Further, the plaint does not show t show that any demand for return of t rn of the alleged amount ount was ever made before issuan issuance of notice dated 19.03.201 3.2013. Furthermore, the re, the cheque relied upon was only s only a paper transaction because t ause the corresponding ca ing cash had already been paid. It id. It is pertinent to mention that t that the respondents-plain plaintiffs also failed to produce In uce Income Tax Returns to prove th their capacity or the a he advancement of any friendly loa dly loan. Even otherwise, the appella ppellant- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.01 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-336-2025 ( 2025 (O&M) -4- defendant No.1 No.1 cannot be held liable for any alle ny alleged loan of her deceased husba husband since she never in ever inherited the assets of M/s Dhanr Dhanraj Industries. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearin Per pearing for the respondents submits th mits that judgments and d and decrees passed by both the lea he learned Courts below are based ased on correct appreciat reciation of fact and law and, therefo therefore, they are required to be uphe e upheld by dismissing the peal. ing the instant regular second appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel fo Hav nsel for the parties and after perusing t using the record with thei th their able assistance, this Court ourt finds no force in the argumen rguments advanced by lea by learned counsel for the appellan pellant. It is rightly concluded by t by the learned lower Co er Courts that the husband of the ap the appellant-defendant No.1 had tak ad taken friendly loan fro an from the respondents-plaintiff and iff and the same has not been return returned later on. Since th ince the defendants are Class I heirs of eirs of the late Abhay Kumar Bansal a nsal and there are admiss admissions made on their part in t rt in the learned trial Court regardi egarding properties and bu and business inherited by them, theref therefore, both the learned Courts belo rts below rightly decreed t reed the suit. Further, the contention tention of the appellant-defendant No No.1 that the suit was it was barred under section 214 of the of the Indian Succession Act is witho without merit, as the ne the necessity to obtain a succession ession certificate is directory and n and not mandatory, as th , as the proceedings for grant of such f such certificate are summary in natu in nature and insistence th nce thereon would only lead to mult o multiplicity of proceedings. The Ci Civil Court, being a c ng a court of plenary jurisdiction, is on, is fully competent to adjudicate t icate the disputes between etween the parties. Thus, the suit ca suit cannot be said to be barred und ed under Section 214 of th 4 of the Indian Succession Act. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and c In v and circumstances, this Court does n does not find any merit merit in the arguments raised by le by learned counsel for the appella ppellant- defendant No.1 No.1, much less, no substantial questi question of law arises for consideratio deration. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.01 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-336-2025 ( 2025 (O&M) -5- Consequently, th tly, the concurrent finding of fact ren rendered by both the Courts below below is upheld and the in the instant regular second appeal is di al is dismissed. 9. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, Misc
Decision
if any, also stand disposed of. , 2025 August 20, 2025 Pankaj* ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No AMARINDER SINGH GREWA (AM JUDGE EWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.01 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh