Once receipt of a lease advance is proved, the defendant bears the burden of proving repayment.

The plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant and had paid an advance of ₹10,50,000 for the suit premises.

After the defendant defaulted on a bank loan, the bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the plaintiff was evicted.

The plaintiff sued to recover the advance, which the trial court decreed with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit.

The defendant appealed, contending that she had repaid the amount when the plaintiff vacated the premises.

1. Whether the defendant proved that she had repaid the advance of ₹10,50,000 to the plaintiff

2. Whether the trial court’s judgment and decree required appellate interference

The Court applied the principle that once the plaintiff establishes the defendant’s receipt of the claimed amount, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove repayment; a bare denial does not discharge that burden.

The appeal was brought under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The defendant admitted receiving ₹10,00,000 under the lease agreement but disputed the additional ₹50,000 and the later lease agreement.

The Court found that the plaintiff’s documentary evidence, together with the defendant’s cross-examination admission concerning the ₹50,000 payment to the defendant’s husband, established receipt of the full ₹10,50,000.

The defendant produced no documentary evidence of repayment.

The Court therefore held that she had not discharged the burden that shifted to her after the plaintiff established receipt of the money.

It found no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree directing repayment of ₹10,50,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit were confirmed.

No order as to costs was made.