1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Reserved on 07-03-2022

Pronounced on 29-04-2022

FA No. 159 of 2014

• Khemchand Jain S/o Late Surajmal Jain Aged About 65 Years R/o

Devshri Takij Road, Baniya Para, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari C.G.

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Smt. Bharti Moolwani W/o Late Manoharlal Moolwani Aged About 36

Years R/o In Front Of Golbazar, Usmaniya Bada, Dhamtari C.G.

2. Kamal Moolwani S/o Late Manohar Lal Moolwani Aged About 19

Years R/o In Front Of Golbazar, Usmaniya Bada, Dhamtari C.G.

3. Rekha Moolwani D/o Late Manohar Lal Moolwani Aged About 16

Years Minor, Thru- Mother Smt. Bhartiya Moolwani, R/o In Front Of

Golbazar, Usmaniya Bada, Dhamtari C.G.

4. Sumit Moolwani S/o Late Manohar Lal Moolwani Aged About 14 Years

Minor, Thru- Mother Smt. Bhartiya Moolwani, R/o In Front Of

Golbazar, Usmaniya Bada, Dhamtari C.G.

---- Respondents

For Appellant

:

Shri J.A. Lohani, Advocate

For Respondents

:

Shri Tritib Bhattacharya, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Narendra Kumar Vyas

C.A.V.

JUDGMENT

1) This is plaintiff's first appeal filed under Section 96 of the CPC arising out

of judgment and decree dated 08.08.2014 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.) passed in Civil Suit No. 01-

B/2014 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 300,000/-

against defendants has been dismissed.

2) For convenience plaintiff and defendants are termed as it exists before

the trial Court.

3) The plaintiff has filed civil suit for recovery of Rs. 300,000/- along with

interest against legal representatives of Manoharlal Moolwani namely

Bharti Moolwani, Kamal Moolwani, Rekha Moolwani and Sumit

Moolwani. It has been contended that plaintiff and Manoharlal Moolwani

were known to each other. Since, late Manoharlal has some financial

crunch he had requested the plaintiff to provide him financial assistance.

2

He assured him that he will return the entire amount with interest.

Considering the circumstances and the fact that they were known to

each other, he gave Rs. 3,00,000/- on 20.07.2006 to Manoharlal and as

a security the Manoharlal handed over a cheque valued Rs. 3,00,000/-

drawn in State Bank of India and also written promissory note. But all of

a sudden, Manoharlal met an accident and died on 08.08.2006.

Thereafter on 27.09.2006 the plaintiff informed about the promissory note

with regard to the money transaction taken place between plaintiff and

the deceased, and requested for returning the money, but since they

have not returned the money, he submitted the cheque in bank on

04.01.2007 for clearance, the said cheque was returned by the bank. He

informed about the defaulting of the cheque to defendants No. 1 and 2,

but when even then they did not return the money, he filed instant civil

suit before learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari for recovery of the

amount against the respondents.

4) Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the allegation

made in the plaint contending that the deceased did not take amount of

Rs. 3,00,000/- from the plaintiff. In fact, the deceased was a member of

Becee which the plaintiff was arranging, therefore, he had given cheque

to the plaintiff to maintain membership in the Becee. After death of the

deceased the plaintiff intends to encash the same. It is further submitted

that their father, the deceased was running a bakery and they had never

financial crunch. It is emphatically denied that the plaintiff has given any

information about the money transaction with the deceased. His father

expired on 08.01.2006 thereafter the plaintiff has deposited the cheque

which is totally illegal and it falls within commission of offence. After

death of account holder, the account operation stops immediately. This

fact was known to him still he has submitted the cheque which is nothing

but fraud against the dead person. It is further contended that the plaintiff

has filed various false