Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 888 (CAL)

Tapan Ranjan Maiti v. Shyamal Sarkar

2024-04-24

KRISHNA RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the present case against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,82,077/-along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In the month of December, 2009, the defendant had approached the plaintiff and informed that the defendant is in urgent need of money as loan for business purposes and the defendant had also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum. As per the request of the defendant, the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.13,78,000/-on different dates from 8th December, 2009 to 21st March, 2010 and the defendant has also executed receipts with respect to the amounts received by the defendant. 2. Out of the total amount, the defendant has repaid only a sum of Rs.1,06,000/-. Initially, the plaintiff had issued notice to the defendant on 18th April, 2012 calling upon the defendant for payment of the amount along with interest but the plaintiff finds some mistakes in the said notice, the plaintiff has withdrawn the said notice and issued a fresh notice on 16th July, 2012, calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.14,82,077/-. Though the notice was duly served upon the defendant but the defendant had neither returned the amount nor had sent any reply to the notice, accordingly, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. 3. The defendant had entered appearance in the suit and filed his written statement wherein the defendant has taken the plea that the suit is barred by law, there is no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and the defendant has not entered into any agreement with the plaintiff. In the written statement, the defendant has admitted that the defendant has received an amount of Rs. 2,92,000/-in tranches on the different dates and the defendant has repaid a sum of Rs.1,06,000/-which comprises of a principal competent of Rs.1,00,000/-and the share of the plaintiff’s profit of 6% thereon. The defendant has also admitted that as regard to the balance amount of Rs.1,92,000/-, the defendant is ready and willing to pay the said amount together with the agreed share of the plaintiff’s profit at the rate of 6%. The defendant has denied with regard to a sum of Rs.14,82,077/-due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. 4. The defendant has also admitted that as regard to the balance amount of Rs.1,92,000/-, the defendant is ready and willing to pay the said amount together with the agreed share of the plaintiff’s profit at the rate of 6%. The defendant has denied with regard to a sum of Rs.14,82,077/-due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: i. Whether the suit lacks cause of action or does not have jurisdiction as alleged by the Defendant in his Written Statement? ii. Was there any agreement oral or written entered into between the parties or that there was any jural relationship between the parties as alleged by the Defendant in his Written Statement? iii. Whether the documents annexed to the plaint are forged, fabricated and manufactured or that the signatures of the defendant was procured by perpetrating fraud and on false and fictitious pretext as alleged by the Defendant is his Written Statement? iv. Whether the quantum of Rs. 13,78,000/-was lent to the Defendant as advance by the plaintiff as stated in paragraph 2 of the plaint? v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 14,82,077/-as due and liability of the Defendant as on 30th July, 2012 as stated in paragraph 5 of the Plaint? vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interim interest and interest upon judgment at 18% per annum stated in paragraph 5 of the Plaint? vii. To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled? 5. The plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and during his evidence, altogether 20 (twenty) documents were exhibited as Exhibit–A to Exhibit-T which are as follows: Exhibit – A: Copy of a money receipt dated 8th December, 2009, prepared by the plaintiff and signed by Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, of Rs. 32,000/-. Exhibit – B: Copy of a money receipt prepared by the plaintiff, dated 15th December, 2009, for a sum of Rs. 9,74,000/-which was duly signed by Mr. Shyamal Sarkar. Exhibit – C: Copy of the seizure list dated 28th November, 2011, issued by the Camac Street P.S., which shows the details of all the money receipts that had been seized by them. Exhibit – D: Copy of a money receipt prepareed by the plaintiff, dated 1st March, 2010 and singed by the defendant, i.e. Mr. Shyamal Sarkar. Exhibit – C: Copy of the seizure list dated 28th November, 2011, issued by the Camac Street P.S., which shows the details of all the money receipts that had been seized by them. Exhibit – D: Copy of a money receipt prepareed by the plaintiff, dated 1st March, 2010 and singed by the defendant, i.e. Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, wherein it is mentioned that the defendant had taken an amount of Rs. 25,000/-from the plaintiff and on 12th March, 2010, the defendant had again taken a sum of Rs.5,000/-from the plaintiff. Exhibit – E: Copy of a money receipt prepared by the plaintiff, dated 10th March, 2010, which was signed by Mr. Shyamal Sarkar on 12th March, 2010, for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Exhibit – F: Copy of a money receipt prepared by the plaintiff, dated 21st March, 2010, singed by the defendant, i.e. Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, wherein it was mentioned that the defendant have taken a sum of Rs. 2,92,000/-from the plaintiff. Exhibit – G: A copy of a letter dated 11th April, 2012, written by the plaintiff to the Chairman of CSTC, where the defendant, i.e. Mr. Shyamal Sarkar used to work, informing the Chairman of CSTC about the alleged fraud which is committed by the defendant. Exhibit – H: A Copy of a Letter dated 7th November, 2010, written by the plaintiff, to the O.C., Belgharia P.S., which was a complaint against Mr. Shyamal Sarkar. Exhibit – I: Copy of a complaint, dated 12th September, 2011, lodged by the plaintiff against the defendant, to the D.C.D.D (Special), Lalbazar, Kolkata – 700 001 for arresting Mr. Shyamal Sarkar. Exhibit – J: Copy of complaint letter dated 26th September, 2011, lodged by the plaintiff against the defendant, to the Commissioner of Police, Lalbazar, Kolkata – 700 001. Exhibit – K: Copy of complaint letter dated 28th September, 2011, lodged by the plaintiff against the defendant, to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Division, 113, APC Bose Road. Exhibit – L: A copy of a letter dated 18th April, 2012, written by the Learned Advocate for the plaintiff, along with original postal receipts and AD Card, which was sent to the defendant and was also duly received by the defendant. Exhibit – L: A copy of a letter dated 18th April, 2012, written by the Learned Advocate for the plaintiff, along with original postal receipts and AD Card, which was sent to the defendant and was also duly received by the defendant. Exhibit – M: A copy of a Notice dated 16th July, 2012, along with original postal receipts and AD Card, sent by the plaintiff for claiming a sum of Rs. 14,82,077/-, to Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, which was duly received by him. Exhibit – N: Carbon Copy of seizure list dated 13th August, 2011, made by the Investigation Officer of Amherst Street Police Station, in connection with Case. No 273 dated 31st February, 2010. Exhibit – O: Copy of a contract dated 30th September,2010, which was entered by and between both the parties in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Mr. Meghnath Chakraborty and Dilip Majumder, wherein it is stated that a sum of Rs. 8,47,000-would be paid by Mr. Shyamal Sarkar through monthly instalments of Rs. 12,000/-(approx.). Exhibit – P (Collectively) : A copy of a Notice dated 18th April, 2012, sent by the Learned Advocate for the plaintiff, to Mr. Shyamal Sarkar also CSTC, Maniktala, with an endorsement of N/C, i.e. ‘Not Claimed’, along with signature of the Advocate are exhibited collectively. Exhibit – Q (Collectively) : A copy of a notice dated 16th July, 2012, sent by the Learned Advocate for the plaintiff, to Mr. Shyamal Sarkar at C.S.T.C., Maniktola Depo, with an endorsement of N/C, i.e. ‘Not Claimed’, along with signature of the Advocate are exhibited collectively. Exhibit – R: Xerox Copy of account details of the State Bank of India, Salt Lake Branch, of the plaintiff. Exhibit – S: Copies of bank statements of the State Bank of India, which shows several payments made to the defendant by the plaintiff. Exhibit – T: A copy of an agreement, between the plaintiff and his landlord, which shows that the plaintiff was a resident of 12/2, Madan Mitra Lane. 6. The defendant himself has examined as D.W.1 and during his evidence, one document was exhibited being Exhibit-1. 7. At the time of argument, the Counsel for the defendant has not pressed the issue no.1. All the remaining issues are connected with each other and thus all have been taken up together for consideration. 6. The defendant himself has examined as D.W.1 and during his evidence, one document was exhibited being Exhibit-1. 7. At the time of argument, the Counsel for the defendant has not pressed the issue no.1. All the remaining issues are connected with each other and thus all have been taken up together for consideration. As per paragraph 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff has given the details of the amount lent to the defendant on different date which are as follows: Date Amount Paid 08.12.2009 32,000/- 15.12.2009 9,74,000/- 01.03.2010 and 12.03.2010 25,000/-+ 5,000/- 10.03.2010 50,000/- 21.03.2010 2,92,000/- Total 13,78,000/- At paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff has given the details of the amount received from the defendant on various dates which are as follows : Date Amount Received 12.01.2010 1,000/- 19.10.2010 6,000/- 11.03.2011 60,000/- 20.04.2011 39,000/- Total 1,06,000/- In the plaint, the plaintiff has disclosed five (5) numbers of money receipts but had not disclosed any agreement entered between the parties. Exhibits -A, B, D, E and F are the money receipts total amounting to Rs. 13,78,000/-. In paragraph 10 of the written statement, the defendant has made out a specific case that signatures of the defendant were procured on the documents by the plaintiff by perpetrating fraud and on false pretexts. The defendant had signed on some money receipts at the instance of the plaintiff and in good faith but the plaintiff has made various interpolations in the money receipts in order to give false impression to this Court and to grab extra money from the defendant. Exhibit-A is the money receipt of Rs.32,000/-dated 8th December, 2009 and at the time of exhibiting the said documents, the plaintiff at question Nos. 25 and 26 has stated that firstly, the defendant has sought Rs. 30,000/-(Though in the evidence it is wrongly typed as Rs. 32,000/-) and later on the defendant had asked for Rs.2000/-, he overwrote the figure of amount and it was done in presence of the defendant. On perusal of Exhibit–A, it reveals that the defendant has taken an amount of Rs. 32,000/-from Abhay Mishra through the plaintiff. The plaintiff in question Nos. 198, 199 and 200 had tried to explain Exhibit-A. Question Nos. 198 to 200 reads as follows: “198. I am showing you a document which has been marked as Exhibit -A in this document. On perusal of Exhibit–A, it reveals that the defendant has taken an amount of Rs. 32,000/-from Abhay Mishra through the plaintiff. The plaintiff in question Nos. 198, 199 and 200 had tried to explain Exhibit-A. Question Nos. 198 to 200 reads as follows: “198. I am showing you a document which has been marked as Exhibit -A in this document. Please go through this document and tell who is Avay Mishra ?/I had taken money from Avay Mishra as Shyamal Sarkar would repay the house building loan. That money has been written here and this amount was brought through me. 199. To whom was Shyamal Sarkar liable to repay this amount?/ He was suppose to pay to Avay Mishra through me but he did not pay. 200. Did Avay Mishra get back his money ?/ Shyamal Sarkar did not pay this money as I was liable to pay this money to Avay Mishra. I had paid this money to Avay Mishra.” The document i.e. Exhibit-A says that the defendant has taken an amount of Rs. 32,000/-from Abhay Mishra but the plaintiff has made out a new case in Question Nos. 198, 199 and 200 though the plaintiff has not made out such case in the plaint. The plaintiff has not examined Mr. Abhay Mishra to prove the contention that the plaintiff has paid the said amount to Mr. Abhay Mishra and the plaintiff has also not filed any document to prove that the plaintiff has returned the amount to Mr. Abhay Mishra. Considering the above, this Court finds that as per Exhibit-A, the defendant has not borrowed/taken the amount of Rs. 32,000/-from the plaintiff. Exhibit–B is a money receipt for a sum of Rs. 9,74,000/-dated 15th December, 2009. As per the evidence of the plaintiff (PW-1), the said document is in the handwriting of the plaintiff but signature appearing in the said document is of the defendant. In the said document, there are two over writings and the plaintiff admitted the same. As per Exhibit–B, the defendant has taken an amount of Rs. 90,000/-in three tranches (Rs.20,000/-, Rs.40,000/-and Rs. 30,000/-). In the said document other payments total amounting to Rs.9,74,000/-is also mentioned. The plaintiff tried to explain about the figures mentioned in Exhibit-B in Question Nos. In the said document, there are two over writings and the plaintiff admitted the same. As per Exhibit–B, the defendant has taken an amount of Rs. 90,000/-in three tranches (Rs.20,000/-, Rs.40,000/-and Rs. 30,000/-). In the said document other payments total amounting to Rs.9,74,000/-is also mentioned. The plaintiff tried to explain about the figures mentioned in Exhibit-B in Question Nos. 195 to 197 but what the case made out in the said questions, the plaintiff has not made out the said case in the plaint. The plaintiff has made out a case in the examination-in-chief that the defendant has torn all the papers saying that he did not requires so many papers and he wanted only calculation in one paper that is the reason why he had written in Exhibit–B. The plaintiff has given the details of amount lent to the defendant in paragraph 2 of the plaint but the details of paragraph 2 of the plaint and the details mentioned in Exhibit-B read with question Nos. 195 to 197 are different all together. In view of the above, this Court finds that the plaintiff failed to prove Exhibit-B. Exhibit-D is another money receipt dated 1st March, 2010, for an amount of Rs. 25,000/-and further an amount of Rs.5000/-dated 12th March, 2010. As per the evidence of the plaintiff, the document was prepared by the plaintiff and signed by defendant. The said document is also having some over writing but there is no signature of the defendant in the overwriting. As per evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant has borrowed the said amount for purchasing of motorcycle and then the plaintiff tried to explain about Exhibit-D in question No. 201. In Exhibit-D, it is mentioned that the defendant had taken Rs. 25,000/-through the plaintiff from Abhay Mishra. It is clear that the amount of Rs. 25,000/-is not of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not paid the said amount to the defendant. In question No. 201, the plaintiff has made out a case that the plaintiff has repaid the said amount to Abhay Mishra but the plaintiff has neither brought any document on record to prove that the plaintiff has made payment to Mr. Abhay Mishra nor Mr. Mishra was examined as witness to prove that the defendant has taken the said amount from him through the plaintiff and the plaintiff has returned the said amount to Mr. Mishra. Abhay Mishra nor Mr. Mishra was examined as witness to prove that the defendant has taken the said amount from him through the plaintiff and the plaintiff has returned the said amount to Mr. Mishra. In the said document further amount of Rs. 5000/-is added on 12th March, 2010 but after addition of the said amount neither any signature of the defendant was obtained nor any document is produced to prove that on 12th March, 2010 further amount of Rs. 5,000/-was paid to the defendant. Considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to accept Exhibit–D. Exhibit–E is also a money receipt dated 10th March, 2010, for Rs. 50,000/-prepared by the plaintiff and signed by the defendant. As per the evidence of the plaintiff, the document was prepared on 10th March, 2010 and signed on 12th March, 2010. This document also reveals that the defendant has taken an amount of Rs. 50,000/-for the purpose of his business from Mr. Abhay Mishra through the plaintiff. In the said document, it is also mentioned that the plaintiff will get Rs. 30,000/-and 50,000/-= Rs. 80,000/-from the defendant. If it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has taken an amount of Rs. 50,000/-from Mr. Abhay Mishra through the plaintiff then how the plaintiff can file a suit and claim the said amount. The plaintiff has not adduced any evidence that Mr. Abhay Mishra has authorised the plaintiff to file the present suit on behalf of Mr. Mishra for recovery of amount. The case of the plaintiff that the defendant has taken loan from Mr. Mishra through the plaintiff but the fact remains that the amount was paid by Mr. Mishra and not by the plaintiff. In view of the above, Exhibit-E cannot be treated as a document to prove that the plaintiff has paid the said amount to the defendant or the defendant has borrowed the said amount from the plaintiff. Exhibit – F is also a money receipt for Rs. 2,92,000/-. The said amount is admitted by the defendant in his written statement at paragraphs 11 (e) and (f) which reads as follows: “(e) The defendant had received a sum of Rs.2,92,000/-from the plaintiff in tranches on the different dates. (f) Out of the aforesaid sums the defendant acquired used motor vehicles with the intention of reselling the same at a profit. (f) Out of the aforesaid sums the defendant acquired used motor vehicles with the intention of reselling the same at a profit. The defendant has since been able to gain profit and accordingly, the defendant has repaid a sum of Rs.1,06,000/-which comprises of a principal competent of Rs.1,00,000/-and the share of the plaintiffs profit of 6% thereon. So far as the balance sum of Rs. 1,92,000/-is concerned the defendant is ready and willing to refund the same together with the agreed share of the plaintiffs profit[i.e. of 6% thereon}.” The plaintiff is aslo admitted that the defendant has returned an amount of Rs. 1,06,000/-in four tranches at para 4 of the plaint. The defendant has also stated in paragraph 11(f) of written statement that the defendant is ready and willing to refund the balance amount of Rs. 1,92,000/-with interest at the rate of 6%. In view of the admission made by the defendant in the written statement, the defendant is liable to refund an amount of Rs. 1,92,000/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 21st April, 2011, till the realisation of the said amount in full. Exhibit-O is an agreement dated 30th September, 2010. The plaintiff has neither disclosed the said agreement in the plaint nor the plaintiff has made out any case of the agreement in the plaint. As per the evidence of the plaintiff due to the money dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, there was a lack of peace and harmony in the society and on the intervention of the local people of the said area, at the local club, a contract was prepared in which the defendant has signed in presence of the witnesses. At the time of evidence, the plaintiff has described about the agreement vide question Nos. 136 to 150. The relevant portion of the evidence of the plaintiff reads as follows: “139. Kindly come to the second page of this document and tell My Lord, are you identifying the signatures on the document appearing thereat?/ On the right hand side the signature of Shyamal Sarkar is appearing and as witnesses the signatures of Megnath Chakraborty and Dilip Mazumder are appearing and their respective addressees are also there. 145. What amount has been stated to be due in this agreement ?/ It is stated in this agreement for a sum of Rs. 145. What amount has been stated to be due in this agreement ?/ It is stated in this agreement for a sum of Rs. 12,72,000/-but vide this agreement it was settled that a sum of Rs. 8,47,000/-would be paid. It was also stated in this agreement that if he could not make payment to me then he must pay to the tune of Rs. 12000/-per month. 146. (Shown an endorsement made on the last page of this document) -why is a portion thereof struck off ?/ During the execution of this agreement, it was told to him that after signing this document he must give it back in our office. He made certain payment but after making payment, he has struck off his portion and whatever Shyamal Sarkar stated verbally, he was told to write it down. After striking off the upper portion, he has written this portion appearing after that.” During the cross examination of the plaintiff, the defendant had put several questions with regard to the agreement and in question Nos. 297 to 299, the plaintiff has replied as follows: “297. Kindly see the reverse side of page 2, wherein you will find that there are many handwriting notes which are marked out. Please explain these entries?/ The date on which this agreement was executed i.e. on 30/09/2010. At that time when many person had left, the rest of people opined that if he does not repay the money then whether he had legal can be taken or not. So, all these people reaming present they wrote down under that if Shyamal Sarkar does not repay a sum of Rs.8,47,000/-and if he fails to repay of Rs.12,000/-per month they he would have to pay a sum of Rs.12,72,000/-. And Shyamal Sarkar was asked to sign on this paper and return the paper. 298. Then what happened?/ Thereafter, he wrote on papers and said that the Xerox shop was closed and he will sign it on a later date. 299. Thereafter what happened?/ After paying the money he just crushed it and said that recording will have to be made as per his version. Bijay Saha and Laxman Ghosh pressurized him to make the writing in the manner which is appearing above. 299. Thereafter what happened?/ After paying the money he just crushed it and said that recording will have to be made as per his version. Bijay Saha and Laxman Ghosh pressurized him to make the writing in the manner which is appearing above. But in spite of the same he struck out the writing appearing at top of this page in presence of the said persons and he wrote down his own version that he would pay the money.” 8. As per the evidence of the plaintiff, the document was prepared at the local club in presence of the local people and the said document was written by one Toton Dey. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that Bijay Saha and Laxman Gosh have pressurized the defendant to make the writing in the manner which is appearing above. As per the evidence of the plaintiff, two witnesses, namely, Mr. Mehgnath Chakraborthy and Mr. Dilip Mazumdar have signed in the said agreement but neither Mr. Toton Dey nor the witnesses were examined to prove the document. The defendant has exhibited one document as Exhibit-1 i.e. Certified Copy of the deposition of the defendant in a criminal case (G.R. Case No. 3436 of 2010) and the Certified copy of Exhibit-4 (which was exhibited in the criminal proceeding) and the said Exhibit-4 is the original bond of Exhibit-O of the present case. The defendant has drawn the attention of this Court by comparing both the bonds, Xerox Copy of the bond which is produced in the present case and is marked as ‘Exhibit-O’ and the Original Copy of the Bond which was seized by the police during investigation and was marked in the criminal proceedings as ‘Exhibit – 4’ . On comparing both Exhibits i.e bonds, this Court find that in the Xerox copy of the bond, there are further writing on the overleaf of the Xerox bond paper though the writings are not appearing in the original bond which was marked as Exhibit ’4’ in the criminal proceeding on comparing with the original certified copy of the bond (Exhibit-4 in the criminal proceeding and Exhibit–O in the present proceeding), it is proved that the plaintiff had made some addition in the Xerox copy of the bond after seizure of the original by the police authorities in a criminal proceeding. As per the evidence of the plaintiff, Mr. Bijay Saha and Mr. As per the evidence of the plaintiff, Mr. Bijay Saha and Mr. Laxman Ghosh have pressurized the defendant to make to make a writing which is an agreement considering the above, this Court finds that Exhibit-O has not been executed by the defendant out of his free will and consent and the plaintiff has made further addition in the Xerox copy of the bond after seizure of the original document by the police thus Exhibit–O cannot be relied upon. 9. Before filing of the present suit, the plaintiff has also initiated a criminal case against the defendant by filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on the basis of the order passed by the Learned Magistrate, the police has investigated the case and charge-sheet was filed against the defendant for the offence under Sections 420/406/506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The defendant has faced the trial before the Learned Magistrate and on 30th July, 2022, the Learned Magistrate delivered judgment wherein the defendant is acquitted from the said case. 10. During argument, the defendant has produced certified copy of the judgment passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 4th Court, Calcutta dated 30th July, 2022. The Counsel for the plaintiff has admitted the said judgment and submitted that neither the plaintiff nor the State has preferred any appeal against the said judgment. After going through the judgment, this Court finds that the facts and documents of both the cases are similar. It is found from the judgment that the Agreement dated 30th September, 2010 (Exhibit–O in the present case) and money receipt dated 15th December, 2009, (Exhibit– B in the present case) are also the subject-matter of the said criminal proceeding and the Learned Magistrate has dealt with both the documents and held that the prosecution has not proved the said documents. 11. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 623 (Ramesh Kumar vs. Kesho Ram) and submitted that if the allegations of facts are admitted, there is no need to prove what is admitted or must be deemed to be admitted and there can be admissions by non-traverse. 12. 11. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 623 (Ramesh Kumar vs. Kesho Ram) and submitted that if the allegations of facts are admitted, there is no need to prove what is admitted or must be deemed to be admitted and there can be admissions by non-traverse. 12. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon the judgment reported in 1960 SCC OnLine Cal 44 (A.E.G. Carapiet vs. A.Y. Derderian) and submitted that whenever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross-examination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. 13. In the present case, the defendant has specifically admitted with regard to the amount of Rs. 2,92,000/-out of which the defendant has paid an amount of Rs. 1,06,000/-and the plaintiff has also admitted the said fact of receipt of the amount, accordingly, this Court held that the defendant is liable to pay the remaining amount along with interest. As regard the other documents which the plaintiff has relied upon, the defendant has cross examined extensively and has not admitted, thus for the remaining part of the evidence, the judgments relied by the plaintiff is not applicable. 14. The Counsel for the defendant in support of his case has relied upon the judgment reported in (1977) 1 SCC 379 (Seth Loonkaran Sethiya and Others vs. Mr. Ivan E. John and Others) and submitted that if an alteration is made in a material part of a deed, after its execution, by or with the consent of any party or person entitled under it, but without the consent of the party or person liable under it, the deed is rendered void from the time of the alteration so as to prevent the person who has made or authorised the alteration, and those claiming under him, from putting the deed in suit to enforce against any party bound by it, who did not consent to the alteration, any obligation, covenant, or promise thereby undertaken or made. 15. 15. Learned Counsel for the defendant has further relied upon the judgment reported in (2015) 1 SCC 466 (State of Orissa and Another vs. Fakir Charan Sethi (Dead through Legal Heirs) and Ors.) and submitted that Judicial order must be based on strong foundational facts free from any doubt as regards the correctness and authenticity thereof. 16. In the present case also, the plaintiff has relied upon the Agreement dated 30th September, 2010 but has admitted that subsequent to signing of the document further additions have been made but the plaintiff failed to prove that the said additions have been made with the consent of the defendant and to prove the said fact, the plaintiff has not examined the witnesses of the said agreement or the person who has written the said agreement. 17. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 14,82,077/-as claimed by the plaintiff but the defendant has admitted the amount of Rs. 2,92,000/-out of which admittedly the defendant has returned an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-plus interest of Rs. 6000/-total amounting to Rs. 1,06000/-and it is also admitted the defendant is ready and willing to refund the balance amount of Rs.1,92,000/-along with interest at the rate of 6% and thus the plaintiff is only entitled to a decree for an amount of Rs. 1,92,000/-along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 21st April, 2011 till the realization of the amount of Rs.1,92,000/-. 18. The defendant is directed to pay Rs. 1,92,000/-(Rupees One Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Only) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 21st April, 2011, till realisation of the said amount to the plaintiff. 19. C.S. No. 265 of 2012 is disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly.