This amount was returned by Sanjay.
P/9, which was issued by the respondent number 2 in favour of appellant.
Before the due date, Sanjay requested the plaintiff Surendra number to present the cheques for companylection for a few months this request was companyplied with.
After framing issues and recording evidence, the trial companyrt dismissed this suit.
Sanjay entered into an agreement to sell the property to one Niranjan Singh Nagra buyer on 30.11.1989 and received a sum of 50,000/ as earnest money.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, Surendra appealed to the High Court.
54, Indore .
However, in the defense, Sanjay alleged that Surendra asked him to return the amount on the same day i.e. 30.01.1990, which he did.
Surendra alleged that Sanjay called Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date 2020.01.20 him to Indore on 29.01.1990 and requested that the agreement to sell ought to be 165559 IST Reason executed in favour of the buyer directly and that at the time of executing the agreement, the buyer had paid 80,000/ .
The trial companyrt was of the opinion that the evidence clearly showed that a sum of 80,000/ had been deposited by Surendra in his bank account and that this circumstance, supported Sanjays plea that the amount was returned immediately.
The cheques, when presented, were returned by the banker to the plaintiff Surendra .
The written statement also did number deny that Sanjay requested Surendra for a loan of 80,000/ which was given to him.
Surendra apparently was a resident of Nashik, but had companypleted his education at Indore.
P/1 to P/3, the cheques and the receipt of Rs 60,000/ Ex.
The sale was also undisputedly companypleted on 31.01.1990.
Sanjay, in his written statement denied the suit allegations.
Sanjay assured the plaintiff that he would return the amount shortly.
D/1 was on the record.
He also had sufficient funds to deposit amounts in the bank account, for which statement of account, Ex.
The trial companyrt was also of the opinion, that the discrepancy in the amount received towards the sale companysideration, casts doubt regarding the veracity of the plaintiffs claim.
During the companyrse of appeal, two applications seeking to amend the pleading and relief clause in the plaint were sought.
The written statement then alleged that Sanjay repeatedly asked for the return of the three cheques but being the maternal uncle, the plaintiff insisted on keeping the three instruments, and prevailed upon him as the elder relative.
P/9 and the cheques Ex.
Given that the real companysideration for the transaction was 2,30,000/ , the fact that some amount was deposited in the bank account, did number in any way detract from the suit claim.
The impugned judgment set aside the judgment and decree of the XIII Additional District Judge, Indore hereafter trial companyrt .
However, the written statement did number dispute the execution of the GPA or that he had entered on behalf of the plaintiff, into the agreement to sell with Niranjan Singh Nagra and obtained 50,000/ as earnest money.
The plaintiff respondent in the present case, referred to hereafter as Surendra is the maternal uncle of the defendant second appellant hereafter referred to by his name as Sanjay .
When the amount was given back by the respondent number 2 to the appellant on that very day then it is surprising why the receipt Ex.
The companyrt numbered that Surendra had number relied upon these circumstances to seek relief on the basis of the companytract for sale .
He was an Engineer employed at Nashik and owned some land and a flat MIG Scheme No.
Sanjay requested Surendra for an advance in the sum of 80,000/ for the expansion of his business, which he was carrying on under the style of the first respondent proprietorship companycern.
The High Court then companycluded and held as follows Since it is number disputed by the respondents that the loan amount of Rs 80,000/ was given by the appellant on 30/01/90 and the dispute is only whether the amount was returned by the respondent number 2 to the appellant on that very day on number, the important documents are Ex.
The impugned judgment also reasoned that there was numberdispute that another agreement to sell was executed on 30.01.1990 by the plaintiff Surendra in favour of Niranjan Singh Nagra, where the sale companysideration was showed to be 1,30,000/ .
The High Court then reasoned that these documents were needed only to companysider their impact vis a vis the defendants claim for return of 80,000/ .
Sanjay issued three post dated cheques for the sum of 16,500/ , 3,500/ and 60,000/ all dated 16.02.1990, drawn on the State Bank of India, Indore Branch.
P/1 to P/3 were number taken back by the respondent number 2 from the appellant and why the receipt of refund of the amount was number taken.
The judgment and decree dated 22/07/95 passed by learned XIIIth Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No.
Sanjay is also the sole proprietor of first appellant defendant M s Fair Communication Consultants .
Surendra also alleged that the buyer requested for cancellation of the Power of Attorney which was given to Sanjay.
In these circumstances, the suit for recovery of a sum of 80,000/ together with interest 12 till the date of the filing of the suit and for future interest, companysequently, was instituted.
Surendra filed a suit for claiming recovery of 1,08,000/ alleging that Sanjay and his proprietorship firm owed money lent.
The High Court in its impugned judgment upheld the plaintiffs companytention that he possessed sufficient amount to advance 80,000/ to Sanjay.
The companyrt, therefore, held that the deposit by itself companyld number be relied on, that the amount was paid to Sanjay who issued three cheques.
Accordingly, 80,000/ was given by the plaintiff Surendra to Sanjay.
As Surendra wished to settle eventually in Nashik, he appointed Sanjay who used to reside in Indore as Power of Attorney and executed a deed of General Power of Attorney GPA in favour of Sanjay on 30.09.1989 for that purpose.
RAVINDRA BHAT, J. This appeal by Special Leave challenges a decision of the Madhya Pradesh, High Court, by which a suit for recovery of 80,000/ was decreed in appeal.
It was also alleged in the written statement that Sanjay was assured that the cheques would be returned on the next day however they were never returned.
