The court confirmed the validity of financial agreements and established a party's entitlement to pendente lite interest and costs in a civil claim.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (‘CPC’) read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC impugning the judgment and decree dated 3^rd September, 2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 59187/2016 (‘impugned judgment’).

2. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has passed a decree of Rs. 50 lakhs in favour of the plaintiff along with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

3. The plaintiff has also filed cross objections to the extent that the Trial Court has erred in not granting pendente lite interest as well as the costs of the suit.

4. This Court vide order dated 22^nd November, 2019, directed the appellants/defendants to deposit the 2/3^rd of the decretal amount in the Court which was to be kept in an interest-bearing FDR. Further, vide order dated 21^st February, 2024, this Court directed release of 50% of the deposited amount in favour of the respondent/plaintiff subject to respondent/plaintiff furnishing a personal undertaking.

5. Parties in the present appeal shall be hereinafter referred to as per the nomenclature in the Trial Court. The appellants shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘defendants’ and the respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘plaintiff’.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

6. The case set up by the plaintiff before the Trial Court was as under:

6.1 The defendants are the legal heirs of late Sh. Rakesh Bahadur Mathur (hereinafter referred as ‘Sh. Rakesh Mathur’).

6.2 The plaintiff and Sh. Rakesh Mathur were neighbours and later became friends. Sh. Rakesh Mathur had sold a portion of his property to the plaintiff’s wife in 2012.

6.3 Sh. Rakesh Mathur was into property dealings and sought financial help from the plaintiff.

6.4 The plaintiff extended an interest-free friendly loan of Rs.50 lakhs to Sh. Rakesh Mathur over a period from July, 2013 to August, 2014 by way of cheques as well as cash.

6.5 Sh. Rakesh Mathur executed two promissory notes totalling to Rs.50 lakh in favour of the plaintiff and also issued five undated cheques, totalling Rs.50 lakhs.

6.6 Sh. Rakesh Mathur passed away on 26^th July, 2015 and defendants, who are the legal heirs of late Sh. Rakesh Mathur inherited movable and immovable properties belonging to him.

6.7 Since the aforesaid loan amount was not returned to the plaintiff by the defendants, a legal notice dated 11^th September 2015 was served by the plaintiff on the defendants. However, the defendants failed to make the due payment. Accordingly, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.50 lakhs.

7. The case set up by the defendants in the written statement is as under:

7.1 The defendants have admitted that Sh. Rakesh Mathur sold a portion of the property bearing no. A-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to the wife of the plaintiff. It is also admitted that the plaintiff and Sh. Rakesh Mathur were neighbours.

7.2 The defendants have denied the fact that Sh. Rakesh Mathur had sought any financial help from the plaintiff or that the plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs.50 lakhs to him.

7.3 The defendants have denied issuance of promissory notes or undated cheques by Sh. Rakesh Mathur to the plaintiff. It is stated that the promissory notes and the cheques are forged and fabricated and have been manipulated to make out a case of loan of Rs.50 lakhs allegedly advanced by the plaintiff to Sh. Rakesh Mathur.

7.4 In the first promissory note of Rs.45 lakhs, it is