Proof of additional advance requires corroboration; refund claim failed where only the initial payment was established.

Refund of an alleged larger advance failed because the disputed additional payment was not proved by cogent evidence. The Court accepted that the initial advance of Rs. 3,00,000 was established, but held that the claimed further payment of Rs. 15,00,000 rested only on the plaintiff's testimony, lacked independent corroboration, and was not supported by the contemporaneous notice or a reliable endorsement. The refund claim therefore had to stand on proof of the total advance asserted, and the finding that only Rs. 3,00,000 was proved was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant proved payment of the alleged additional advance of Rs. 15,00,000, so as to sustain refund of Rs. 18,00,000 with interest, when the payment of only Rs. 3,00,000 stood established.

Analysis: The Court accepted the concurrent finding that the initial advance of Rs. 3,00,000 had been proved. The disputed question was the alleged subsequent payment of Rs. 15,00,000. On that aspect, the Court found the evidence unreliable because the claim rested only on the plaintiff's testimony without independent corroboration, the contemporaneous notice did not mention such substantial further payment, and the endorsement relied upon did not inspire confidence in the manner of execution and signing. The Court agreed with the High Court that the additional payment was not established by positive evidence. The Court also noted that the refusal of specific performance had already attained finality and that the refund claim had to stand or fall on proof of the total advance amount.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove payment of the additional Rs. 15,00,000, and the finding that only Rs. 3,00,000 was established was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for refund of an alleged larger advance cannot be sustained without cogent corroborative proof of the disputed payment, especially where the contemporaneous record does not support the asserted transaction.

---