Court rules in favor of plaintiff, orders defendants to repay loan amounts with interest.

The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff in two suits, granting recovery of loan amounts with 6% interest per annum from the filing date until realization. The defendants failed to prove the money was a gift, leading to a liability to refund the amounts. The plaintiff was awarded Rs. 1,00,28,000 and Rs. 2,04,92,000 in the respective suits, with parties bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff had given a loan to the defendant in each of the suits and if so, on what terms, if any, as to repayment and interestRs.
2. Whether the defendant in each of the suits had received the monies as a giftRs.
3. Whether the defendant in each suit is not liable for refund of the monies, also for the reason of transfer of monies at the instance of the plaintiff, as averred in the written statementRs.
4. If under issue No. 1 the plaintiff is found entitled to recovery of money but no agreed term of rate of interest is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, and if so, at what rate and for what periodRs.
5. Relief.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1:
The plaintiff claimed to have given a loan of USD 4,70,000 (INR 2,04,92,000) to the defendant and USD 2,30,000 (INR 1,00,28,000) to the defendant's son, both amounts remitted from his personal account in Colombo, Sri Lanka to the defendants' accounts in New Delhi. The plaintiff asserted that the loan was to be repaid within six months with 18% interest per annum. The defendant admitted receiving the amounts but claimed they were gifts and that the money was remitted back to the plaintiff's company in Sri Lanka. However, the defendant failed to provide admissible evidence to substantiate this claim. Thus, the court found that the plaintiff had indeed given a loan to the defendants, who failed to return it.

Issue No. 2:
The defendant contended that the monies were received as gifts, not loans. However, no evidence was provided to support this claim. The defendant's own admission that the money was intended to be returned to the plaintiff in a circuitous manner undermined this defense. Therefore, the court decided that the defendant failed to prove that the money was received as a gift.

Issue No. 3:
Given the findings on Issues 1 and 2, the court held that the defendant was liable to refund the monies to the plaintiff, as the defense of the money being a gift and the subsequent transfer back to the plaintiff's company was not substantiated with evidence.

Issue No. 4:
The plaintiff claimed an agreed interest rate of 18% per annum but failed to provide cogent evidence of such an agreement. The court, considering the prevailing market situation, assessed the interest rate at 6% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit until the recovery of the amount.

Relief:
The court decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1,00,28,000 in CS(OS) 1239/2008 and Rs. 2,04,92,000 in CS(OS) 1240/2008, along with pendente lite and future interest at 6% per annum from the date of the institution of the suits until the date of payment. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

Conclusion:
The two suits filed by the plaintiff were decreed in his favor, with the court granting the recovery of the loan amounts along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the suits until the realization of the amounts. The court also prepared the decree sheet accordingly.

---