N.P.Sureshkumar and Another Vs P.S.R.Balasubramaniam and another

Statement of Savings Bank account of the 1 st defendant with Axis Bank, Trichy bearing account No.137010100176866 for the period 01.06.2014 to 28.02.2015 – certified copy from the bank;

¶18

Jewels purchased receipt – Color Xerox

¶19

Weighment receipt for a gold chain – Copy

¶20

Photos of the jewels – Photo copy

¶21

2. The averments of the application in brief:-

¶22

The respondents/ plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of money

¶23

against these applicants/ defendants. In the written statement of the defendants, he has averred that the betrothal had taken place between the 1st defendant's daughter and the plaintiffs' son and during that occasion, the gold ornaments had been gifted by the defendants to the plaintiffs with an understanding to deduct the value of the gifted gold ornaments

¶24

from the loan amount payable by the 1 st defendant to the plaintiffs.

¶25

Page 2 of 8

¶26

A. No. 2850 of 2025 in C.S. No. 686 of 2015

¶27

2.1. Now the 1 st defendant has filed this application to receive the

¶28

documents, viz., (1) statement of bank accounts of the 1 st defendant, (2) receipt for jewels purchased and (3) weighment receipts for the jewels along with (4) photos of jewels in order to prove his defense.

¶29

2.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that no

¶30

prejudice would be caused to the respondents /plaintiffs if these documents are received, as the applicants / defendants do not have the originals now and he would produce the same at the time of trial.

¶31

3 . Counter averments of the respondents /plaintiffs in brief:-

¶32

The betrothal that took place between the plaintiffs' son and the 1 st defendant's daughter on 10.09.2014 was called off as the 1 st defendant's daughter was not interested in marriage. No gold ornaments had been gifted by the applicants/ defendants at the time of betrothal. In fact, it is the plaintiffs, who gifted diamond, gold and silver articles worth of Rs.25,00,000/- to the applicants / 1 st defendant's daughter as per the customs prevailing in the community.

¶33

Page 3 of 8

¶34

A. No. 2850 of 2025 in C.S. No. 686 of 2015

¶35

3.1. The applicants /defendants, who had to reciprocate the

¶36

practice as per customs, sought six months time to reciprocate the gift gesture and promised to pay the expenses and accordingly, the amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/- and 5,00,000/- were paid by the applicants

¶37

/defendants on 23.07.2014, 30.07.2014 and 27.08.2014 respectively.

¶38

3.2. The above payments were made towards the cost of the gold items and not towards the loan availed by the defendants. Even the articles gifted by the respondents /plaintiffs have also been taken away by the applicants /defendants. However, the plaintiffs did not choose to re-kindle the bitter memory and hence, restricted the claim only in respect of the loan only.

¶39

3.3. The documents now sought to be produced have no relevancy to the issue on hand. The document No.4 is a mixture of different betrothal pictures, most of which do not pertain to the respondents

¶40

/plaintiffs. Despite the written statement was filed in the year 2018, this Page 4 of 8

¶41

A. No. 2850 of 2025 in C.S. No. 686 of 2015

¶42

application has been filed at this belated stage just to drag the proceedings.

¶43

4. Discussion:-

¶44

On perusal of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiffs have claimed

¶45

recovery of the loan amount lent by them to the 1 st defendant on various occasion. It is true that the plaintiffs' son and the 1 st defendant's daughter got engaged first and later it was called off and that event is not the cause of action for the suit now filed by the plaintiffs.

¶46

5 . Even if the applicants /defendants are allowed to produce the

¶47

documents now sought to be produced, that cannot be considered as the proof for payment of any money towards the loan.

¶48

6 . By establishing purchase of certain jewels and the cash balance

¶49

at the relevant point of time in the account of the applicant, the money transaction relevant to the loan cannot be established.

¶50

Page 5 of 8

¶51

A. No. 2850 of 2025 in C.S. No. 686 of 2015

¶52

7 . Even according to the written statement filed by the applicants

¶53

the loan transactions has not been denied. His only contention is that he had gifted certain jewels to the respondents family during the betrothal with an understanding that the cost of the jewels should be adjusted towards the pending loan owed by the defendants.

¶54

8 . In such case, the applicants /defendants have to prove that some jewels have been gifted during the occasion of the betrothal to the plaintiffs and in pursuant to there was an agreement between the parties to adjust the cost of the jewels towards the portion of the loan repayment. Those facts cannot be proved by the mere production of the receipts for jewels purchased or the weighment receipts of the jewels. The 4 th document, which is whats-app photo showing the images of jewels and persons, is not relevant or necessary because the betrothal event is not denied.

¶55

9 . The statement of bank accounts of the 1 st defendants may be of

¶56

little relevance, if it can establish that any transaction between the Page 6 of 8

¶57

A. No. 2850 of 2025 in C.S. No. 686 of 2015

¶58

plaintiffs and the defendants, especially with regard to the loan

¶59

transaction. In view of the above discussions, I feel it is appropriate to allow the applicants to produce the document No.1 alone.

¶60

10. Accordingly, this application is partly allowed by permitting the applicants /defendants to produce a certified copy of the Document No. 1 and the petition is dismissed in all other aspects. No costs.

09.09.2025

Maya

Page 7 of 8

A. No. 2850 of 2025 in C.S. No. 686 of 2015

¶65

Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶66

Maya