The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies with the defendant to provide documentary evidence for loan repayment, and oral testimony alone is insufficient to establish repayment.

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

These are two appeals filed by the defendant in two separate suits (the same defendant), instituted against him by the same plaintiffs, each suit seeking recovery of money loaned to the appellant.

RSA No. 4333 of 2016, eventually arises out of Civil Suit no. 190 of 2012, seeking recovery of Rs. 1,52,500/-, which was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendergarh and the first appeal filed by the present appellant, against that judgment and decree, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul.

RSA No. 4334 of 2016 eventually arises out of Civil suit no. 533 of 2012, seeking a recovery of Rs. 61,000/- by the same plaintiffs from the same defendant (now appellant). This suit was also decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh (different Court to the one which decided Civil Suit no. 190 of 2012) and the first appeal filed against that judgment and decree by the present appellant, was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul (the same court which decided the appeal out of which RSA No. 4333 of 2016 arises), though by two separate judgments.

2. Since these appeals arise out of separate judgments but were listed together, arguments in each have been heard, but the cases are being dealt with separately within this judgment.

RSA No. 4333 of 2016

3. The facts, as taken from the judgments of the courts below, are that the case of the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), was that they were the legal representatives of one Sumer Singh (being his widow, sons and daughters). Sumer Singh was stated to have given a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellant on 10.08.2009, with it having been agreed that it would be repaid within one year by the appellant, along with the interest @ Rs.1.50 per month/per hundred (1.5% per month).

A writing was also stated to have been made in that regard on a piece of paper, in the presence of attesting witnesses, with both the parties having appended their signatures to the document.

Sumer Singh is stated to have, however, died on 05.09.2011 and despite requests made to the appellant herein to repay the amount, he did not do so. Hence, a legal notice was issued dated 28.05.2012, which was stated to have been served upon him, after which the suit was instituted on 31.07.2012.

4. Upon notice having been issued to him, the appellant-defendant appeared and filed a written statement taking preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, act and conduct of the plaintiffs and jurisdiction etc.

On merits, he admitted to having taken a loan on interest, as also reduction of the terms of the loan into writing, on 10.08.2009.

He submitted that two loans were taken, one of Rs. 1,00,000/- and another of Rs. 40,000/-, (taken on 05.12.2009), in village Santor, Rajasthan, as both Sumer Singh and the appellant were employed as teachers in the Government High School at Santor.

It was further stated by the appellant in his reply, that the terms of the loan were reduced to writing on 23.07.2011 also, (as given in the judgment of the learned Civil Judge), but the loan amount of Rs. 1,86,850/- was in fact re-paid to the plaintiffs, in the presence of another Sumer Singh and one Rajender, both residents of village Santor.

He further submitted that in fact Rs. 1,850/- was given up and that he had also been assured by the plaintiffs that the writing would be destroyed. However, it was now being allegedly misused for claiming the loan amount again.

Thus, the appellant alleged that the plaintiffs were perpetuating a fraud and were mis-representing and therefore, the suit should be dismissed.

5. No replication having been filed, the following issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs. 1,52,500/- alongwith interest from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the