The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that the amount constituted a loan due to insufficient evidence and inherent improbability of the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2018 passed in O.S. No.3902 of 2017 on the file of the XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The plaint, in brief, is as follows:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on 28.02.2016 for the purpose of purchasing the flat in which he was residing. The plaintiff paid the said amount by Cheque No.416273 dated 28.02.2016, drawn on Indian Bank, West Saidapet Branch, which was encashed on 01.03.2016. The defendant agreed to repay the amount on demand with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount, leading to the issuance of a legal notice dated 30.03.2017. The plaintiff contended that the reply notice dated 06.04.2017 contained false claims regarding compromise/settlement and alleged entitlement to a share in the properties, and therefore instituted the suit for the recovery of money sum of Rs.17,46,500/- together with the interest of 12% per annum.

3. The written statement, in brief, is as follows: The defendant admitted receipt of the cheque amount but denied that it constituted a loan. He disputed the plaintiff’s version regarding the purchase of a flat and residence therein, asserting that he had been residing only in rented premises. It was pleaded that there was no documentation evidencing any loan transaction and that the cheque amount was paid towards his rightful one- third share in the estate/proceeds of their father. The defendant further contended that the legal notice was issued merely as a substitute for a promissory note, and that his reply notice clearly set out the true nature of the transaction. He traced the family background and stated that disputes concerning the movable and immovable properties of the father culminated in the issuance of the cheque as part-payment of his share. He also pleaded that, after he addressed letters dated 09.12.2016 to the banks seeking to restrain unilateral operation of the father’s bank accounts and locker, the plaintiff issued the legal notice as a counterblast.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following four issues:

i. Whether the plaintiff advanced Rs.15 lakhs to the defendant?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.17,46,500/- together with interest at 12% on the principal sum of Rs.15 lakhs from the defendant?

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim 12% interest on the loan advanced to the defendant?

iv. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?

5. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and the defendant examined himself as DW-1. On the side of the plaintiff, Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked, and on the side of the defendant, Exs. B-1 to B-18 were marked. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 8.25% per annum.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred the present appeal, contending that the same are contrary to law and evidence and were passed mechanically without proper appreciation of the defence. The appellant also questioned the plaintiff’s credibility, alleging suppression of the true relationship betw