IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) A party who admits receipt of certain amount of money on a particular date and pleads discharge by way of a full and final settlement at a latter date, is one on whom onus lies.
(2) In a suit for recovery of money, a defendant admitting receipt of money but pleading that same was a gratuitous payment, is obliged to prove that it was a gratuitous payment.
(3) Plea that there was a subsisting contract in nature of business transactions, is antithetic to very essence of Section 70 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The two money suits filed by her having been dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed by the First Appellate Court and the decrees so passed by the First Appellate Court having been reversed by the High Court in two second appeals, the plaintiff-appellant is back to square one and is before us in the above appeals.

3. We have heard Shri Rajiv Bhalla, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

4. The appellant herein filed two suits in Civil Suits No.15643 and 15592 of 2007 against the respondents herein, on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, for recovery of (i) a sum of Rs.10,48,000/-in the first suit; and (ii) a sum of Rs.67,31,000/- in the second suit. The averments in the first suit were as follows: (i) that the second respondent herein is the sister of the appellant’s husband; (ii) that the first respondent is the husband and the third respondent herein is the son of respondent No.2; (iii) that the respondents herein (defendants in the suit) were carrying on the business of dealing in building materials under the name and style of Prem Chand Amar Chand; (iv) that the appellant and her son are having a joint account in ICICI Bank, Sector9, Chandigarh, where the respondents also maintain an account; (v) that the respondents borrowed a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- from the appellant on 18.11.2003, by way of a cheque; (vi) that though the respondents refunded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 7.08.2006, promising to repay the balance within six months, they failed to honour the commitment; (vii) that, therefore, the respondents were liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- towards principal and a sum of Rs.4,98,000/- towards interest, thus, totaling to Rs.10,48,000/.

5. The averments in the second suit in brief were as follows: (i) that in the year 20012002, respondent No.1 lured the plaintiff and her husband to join him in his real estate business: (ii) that since the appellant and her family were residing in Kurukshetra and the respondents were living in Chandigarh, the respondent No.1 got the signature of the appellant in some blank papers, on the ground that it was not possible to shuttle every time between these two places, whenever a transaction was to be completed; (iii) that the appellant and her son were having account in the same branch of the same bank in which respondent Nos.1 and 2 were also having account; (iv) that with a view to make available necessary funds, for the use of respondent No.1 in real estate dealings, the appellant and her son kept substantial amounts to their credit in their bank account; (v) that in March, 2006 the appellant and her husband were shocked to find that substantial amounts totaling to Rs.54,50,000/ had been withdrawn from their account on different dates by the respondents; (vi) that on her request, the bank officers produced the records, which disclosed that a cheque dated 30.12.2005 for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/, signed by respondent No.3 by forging the signature of the plaintiff had been encashed, apart from the withdrawal of a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- on 9.05.2005 and the transfer of another sum of Rs.20,00,000/- purportedly on the written request of the appellant on 27.8.2005; (vii) that the withdrawals/ transfer of these amounts were not authorized by the appellant, but had been done by misusing the signatures obtained from the appellant; (viii) that after finding out these facts, the appellant lodged a complaint in FIR No.195 on 14.12.2006 against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code; (ix) that the respondents were granted anticipatory bail in the criminal case, upon their furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and (x) that the amounts withdrawn by/transferred to the account of the defendants, together with interest @ 12% per annum worked out to Rs.67,3