When a defendant admits the receipt of funds in a civil suit, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to substantiate any claim of repayment or adjustment through cogent, verifiable, and independent evidence to avoid a decree for recovery.

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:01.03.2012 PASSED IN O.S NO.434/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.18), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M. NADAF)

This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the defendant, assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2012 in O.S.No.434/2010 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore City (CCH-18)¹"Trial Court" for short.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed the suit as claimed for Rs.10,59,078/- with costs and current interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

4. Facts in brief to file this present appeal are as under:

5. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of money for a total sum of Rs.10,59,778/- with 14% per annum.

6. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court was that, the plaintiffs are the owners of the property bearing No.672/C 24, 11th Cross, 7th Block, K.R.Road, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. The property was initially consisting of ground floor and a small portion at first floor. The defendant is a private Civil Engineer. The plaintiffs entrusted the job of constructing the entire first floor and second floor area on the building standing in the site stated supra. There was no written agreement regarding the construction.

7. The defendant has commenced the construction and did the casting of the mould in the first floor and second floor and also constructed the walls and done plastering work only to an extent of 60%. Defendant has received a sum of Rs.21,15,000/- in several instalments by giving false and manipulative accounts to the plaintiffs. However, after receipt of the amount, he has slowed down the construction work. When the plaintiffs enquired regarding the delay in construction work, he has represented that he was engaged in some other work and he needs a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- urgently to complete the other project and thereafter he would swiftly complete the construction work of the plaintiffs and further assured that the said amount of Rs.8,00,000/- would be adjusted towards the construction payment of the plaintiffs' building.

8. Since the defendant is a close friend of plaintiff’s son D.K.Raghavendra (plaintiff No.2) and as plaintiffs intended to get the building completed, agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.622027 drawn on S.B.joint A/c No.20752 maintained by the plaintiff No.1, her son D.K.Raghavendra and K.G.Narayana drawn on Shamarao Vithal Co-operative Bank Limited in favour of the defendant. The defendant encashed the cheque on 25.09.2007, however, he did not shown any interest in construction of the plaintiffs’ building and never bothered to resume the work. The plaintiffs after due enquiry found that the defendant had collected excess amount than the cost of construction which he had done on the building and not coming forward to complete the building, made the plaintiffs to engage another contractor and complete the construction. In this regard, the plaintiffs requested the defendant to refund the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- taken by way of cheque. Since there was denial, the present suit came to be filed in O.S.No.434/2010 for recovery of money given along with interest.

9. Upon issuance of notice, the defendant appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed written statement, denying the plaint averments and taking contention that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. It was contended that the defendant being a close friend of son of the pl