Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Anita Rani, filed two money suits against the respondents for recovery of amounts allegedly lent or misappropriated. The first suit sought recovery of Rs.10,48,000/- (including interest) for a loan of Rs.10,50,000/- given on 18.11.2003, of which Rs.5,00,000/- was repaid on 7.08.2006. The second suit sought recovery of Rs.67,31,000/- (including interest) for unauthorized withdrawals from her bank account totaling Rs.54,50,000/- through cheques dated 9.05.2005, 27.08.2005, and 30.12.2005, allegedly by forging her signature. The trial court dismissed both suits, holding that the loan was not proved and that the part repayment was in full and final settlement, and that the withdrawals were authorized investments in real estate business. The First Appellate Court reversed, decreeing the suits for Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.54,50,000/- with interest. The High Court in second appeal reversed the First Appellate Court's decrees, dismissing the suits and directing the appellant to refund Rs.55,00,000/- (the amount furnished as bank guarantee in anticipatory bail proceedings) with interest. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the High Court erred in reversing the First Appellate Court's findings. The Court noted that the receipt of Rs.10,50,000/- and part repayment of Rs.5,00,000/- were admitted, and the respondents' plea of full and final settlement was not proved by oral evidence alone without any written memorandum or receipt. The Court also held that the High Court's direction to refund the bank guarantee amount was beyond the scope of the civil second appeal and set it aside. The Supreme Court restored the decrees of the First Appellate Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Money Suit - Recovery of Loan - Burden of Proof - Full and Final Settlement - Where receipt of loan and part repayment are admitted, the party pleading full and final settlement bears heavy burden to prove it - Oral evidence of mediators without written memorandum or receipt is insufficient to establish settlement - Held that the First Appellate Court's decree was justified (Paras 16-17). B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Bank Guarantee - Refund Order - High Court cannot direct refund of amount furnished as bank guarantee in criminal proceedings while deciding civil appeals - Such direction is beyond the scope of civil second appeal - Held that the direction for refund with interest is set aside (Paras 12, 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the First Appellate Court's decree and dismissing the money suits, and whether the High Court could direct refund of the amount paid as bank guarantee in anticipatory bail proceedings.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Judgments of the High Court dated 20.03.2018 in RSA Nos.6134 of 2015 and 130 of 2016 are set aside. The decrees passed by the First Appellate Court (District Judge, Chandigarh) dated 18.03.2015 in Civil Appeal Nos.903 and 1056 of 2013 are restored. The direction of the High Court for refund of Rs.55,00,000/- with interest is set aside.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Full and final settlement
- Oral evidence
- Banking transactions
- Anticipatory bail
- Refund order
