IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof in civil cases lies with the party asserting the claim, and failure to provide sufficient evidence can result in dismissal of the case.

JUDGMENT :

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG

Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 9.

2. This Regular First Appeal is against the judgment and order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-IV, Aizawl Judicial District in Money Suit No. 95/2014 dated 13.12.2021, wherein the learned Trial Court had directed the present appellant and the present respondent No. 10 to pay a sum of Rs. 30,95,000/-with interest @ 9% p.a with effect from the institution of the suit till payment in full is made to the present respondent Nos. 1 to 9 within a period of 3 (three) months from 13.12.2021.

3. The brief facts of the plaintiff’s cases in Money Suit No.95/2014, is that the present respondent Nos. 1 to 9 are the plaintiffs in the Money Suit No. 95/2014. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 9 had filed the Money Suit No. 95/2014 against the present appellant and present respondent No. 10 in Money Suit No. 95/2014 for payment of a sum of Rs. 30,95,000/-. The present appellant was the defendant No. 2 in the Money Suit No. 95/2014 and the present respondent No.10 was the defendant No.1 in the Money Suit No.95/2014. The present respondent No. 10 in the Money Suit is the wife of the present appellant, who is a close relative of the present respondent Nos. 1 to 9. The present respondent No. 10 had approached the present respondent Nos. 1 to 9 for loan on different dates between December, 2011 and November, 2013 and falsely represented separately to all the present respondent Nos. 1 to 9, that she had obtained a supply contract worth Rs. 100 lakhs from the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Department and for that purpose, she requested the present respondent Nos. 1 to 9 for loans on different dates with a promise that she will repay each loan in full within a period of 3 (three) months. The present appellant is a close relative of the present respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and out of trust and goodwill, the present respondent Nos. 1 to 9 each deposited to the respondent No. 10 different amounts of money on different dates since the present respondent No. 10 was the wife of the present appellant. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 9 did not execute any type of agreement or deed with the respondent No. 10 since the money was given out of trust and goodwill. The present respondent No. 10 failed to repay the money which was advanced as loan to her by the instant respondent Nos. 1 to 9, despite her promise to repay their respective loans within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of advancement of the loans. The respondent No. 10 and the present appellant both assured the present respondent Nos. 1 to 9 that they will make every effort to clear the loans including an effort to sell their residential house at Tuikual ‘C’ and also the parental house of the respondent No. 10 at Chanmari West in order to liquidate the loans. However, since no payment was made by the present appellant and the present respondent No. 10, on 08.02.2014, the present appellant and the present respondent No. 10 sent a letter signed by them and 4 (four) other close relatives, requesting the instant respondent Nos. 1 to 9 for more time since it was not possible for them to clear all the loans at the moment. However, even then, no payment was made and the present respondent Nos. 1 to 9 approach the Civil Court as plaintiff Nos. 1 to 9.

4. The present appellant as defendant No. 2 in his written statement before the learned Civil Judge-IV had stated that the present respondent No. 10/defendant No. 1 being his wife had deceived the present respondent Nos. 1 to 9/plaintiff Nos. 1 to 9 by requesting them for loan money. That on 29.11.2013, the present respondent No. 10 had left the present appellant and he does not know her whereabouts. On 08.10.2014, she had taken her properties and they were now divorced by way of ‘Mak’ as per the Mizo Customary law & practice.

5. The present respondent No. 10 as defendant