[2026:RJ-JD:13548]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 872/2025 Damodar Prasad S/o Radhakishan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Lakhotia Bas, Nokha, District Bikaner ----Appellant Versus

1. Meena Bagri W/o Late Shri Kishan, R/o Sujangarh Road Bagri Complex Nokha District Bikaner

2. Surbhi D/o Late Shri Kishan, R/o Sujangarh Road Bagri Complex Nokha District Bikaner

3. Sinomi D/o Late Shri Kishan, R/o Sujangarh Road Bagri Nokha District Bikaner

4. Mahima D/o Late Shri Kishan, R/o Sujangarh Road Bagri Complex Nokha District Bikaner ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kaushal Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Bhaiya with Mr. Mayank Bhaiya HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

23/03/2026

1. The present regular first appeal has been filed against Judgment & Decree dated 19.05.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Nokha, District Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in Civil Original Suit No.55/2022 (CIS No.51/2021) whereby the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 50,50,515/- as filed by the plaintiffs, stood decreed for an amount of Rs.33,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.

2. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that Shri Kishan, deceased husband of plaintiff No.1 awarded a personal loan to the defendant for an amount of Rs.67,00,000/-. The said amount was transferred to the account of the defendant vide digital transactions of different dates. As per the plaintiff, it was agreed between the parties that interest @ 12% per annum would be paid by the defendant on the said amount. However, before the amount could be paid, husband/father of the plaintiffs expired on 05.12.2018. After his death, the plaintiffs made a request to the defendant for repayment of the loan amount and the defendant even repaid Rs.16,75,000/- on 04.03.2020 and Rs.16,75,000/- on 05.03.2020 vide digital transactions. However, the remaining amount remained unpaid and despite continuous requests, when the same was not paid, registered notice dated 19.12.2020 was served on the defendant. When the defendant failed to repay the amount despite service of notice, the suit in question was filed.

3. The case of the defendant was that the complete amount remained paid to the plaintiffs. As admitted by plaintiff No.1 herself, an amount of Rs.33,50,000/- was paid through digital transactions. So far as the remaining amount is concerned, the same was paid to Vikash Toshniwal, Kanhaiyalal Chhipa, Raju Godara, Gopal Chhipa, Mahesh Kumar Pareek and Kailash Pareek in lieu of the construction work undertaken by them on the property of Shri Kishan, at the request and direction of Shri Kishan himself. The receipts qua the amount, as issued by the said persons were exhibited on record.

4. It was further averred by the defendant that Rs.1,00,000/- in cash was paid to plaintiff No.1 when her husband was hospitalised and further Rs.4,00,000/- was paid after the death of her husband. It was hence averred that the complete amount was paid and no amount remained due.

5. The learned Trial Court, on basis of the pleadings made by the parties, proceeded on to frame the following five issues:

“1& vk;k okfn;k ds ifr Lo-Jhfdlu ckxMh+ }kjk izfroknh dks 67]00]000@& :i;s m/kkj fn;s x;s ftlesa izfroknh }kjk 33]50]000@& :i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;kA “ks’k jde ckotwn rdktk vnk ugha dh xbZ\

&&oknhx.k

2& vk;k okfn;k ds ifr Lo-Jhfdlu ckxMh+ o izfroknh ds e/; jkf”k m/kkj nsrs le; 12 izfr”kr dh okf’kZd nj ls C;kt nsuk r; gvq k\

&&oknhx.k

3& vk;k okfn;k dk okn ifjlhek vof/k O;rhr gksus ds ckn izLrqr gksus ls jkf”k fof/kuqlkj olwyuh; ugha gS\

&& izfroknh

4& vk;k izfroknh }kjk okfn;k ds ifr ds funsZ”k ij fodkl rks’kfuoky dks rhu yk[k :i;s] dUgS;kyky Nhaik dks vkB yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;s] jktw xksnkjk dks rhu yk[k :i;s] xksiky Nhaik dks rhu yk[k :i;s] egs”k dqekj ikjhd dks ikap yk[k :i;s] dSyk”k ikjhd dks ikap yk[k :i;s vnk fd;s ,oa blds lkFk gh Lo-Jhfdlu ckxMh+ dks gkVZ vVSd gqvk rc okfn;k dks ,d yk[k :i;s udn ,oa ckjg fnol dh vof/k esa pkj yk[k :i;s udn vnk djds fglk