Withdrawal from a joint account does not establish exclusive ownership or advancement of a loan.

The appellant-plaintiff alleged that the respondents, his brothers, borrowed ₹5,30,000 as a friendly loan carrying interest at 12% per annum to finance their purchase of property bearing No. F-1/37, Village Rithala, Budh Vihar, Delhi.

He claimed to have withdrawn the amount in cash on 14 March 2018 from a joint Canara Bank account held with respondent No. 2’s wife, Smt. Poonam, and thereafter handed it over to the respondents.

The respondents denied the loan and asserted that the property had been purchased for ₹1,90,000 from their own resources.

The Trial Court framed issues concerning concealment of material facts and the plaintiff’s entitlement to recovery.

It dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove either the advancement of the alleged loan or his exclusive ownership of the funds withdrawn from the joint account.

In appeal under Section 96 read with Section 151 and Order XLI Rule 1 CPC, the plaintiff also sought permission to examine additional witnesses and produce further evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

Whether the plaintiff proved that ₹5,30,000 was advanced to the respondents as a friendly loan for purchase of the property?

Whether the plaintiff established that the amount withdrawn from the joint Canara Bank account represented his exclusive funds and could therefore constitute a loan advanced by him to the respondents?

Whether additional evidence, including examination of the alleged eyewitnesses, the property seller, and an Allahabad Bank official, should be permitted at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC?

The Court applied Section 96 CPC governing appeals from original decrees, read with Section 151 and Order XLI Rule 1 CPC.

The Court reiterated that the party asserting advancement of a loan bears the primary burden of proving the transaction; the absence of a written loan agreement is not by itself decisive, but the alleged loan must nevertheless be established through cogent oral or documentary evidence.

It further held that mere authority to operate a joint bank account does not establish exclusive ownership of the funds therein; exclusivity must be proved by evidence showing the source and flow of the money.

Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, additional evidence may be admitted only where the statutory conditions are satisfied, including due diligence, inability to produce the evidence earlier, or the appellate court’s requirement of such evidence to pronounce judgment.

Additional evidence cannot be used merely to fill evidentiary gaps or cure lacunae identified by the Trial Court.

The Court held that the alleged agreement to sell, even if accepted as showing a sale consideration of ₹9,80,000, established only that the respondents may have required funds; it did not prove that the plaintiff actually advanced ₹5,30,000 to them.

No loan agreement, receipt, acknowledgment, or other contemporaneous document existed, and the two persons, Monu and Mukesh, who were allegedly present when the cash was handed over, were not examined.

The plaintiff also failed to prove that the withdrawn funds exclusively belonged to him.

The Canara Bank account was jointly held with Smt. Poonam, and the plaintiff did not identify corresponding withdrawals from his Allahabad Bank account and deposits into the joint account, nor produce supporting deposit slips or other evidence tracing the funds.

The respondents’ weaknesses regarding their income and deposits could not discharge the plaintiff’s primary burden of proving the loan.

The application for additional evidence was rejected because the proposed witnesses and documents were within the plaintiff’s knowledge and could have been produced during trial; the application was viewed as an attempt to fill gaps after the Trial Court had drawn adverse conclusions.

It held that the plaintiff failed to prove the advancement of ₹5,30,000 as a loan and failed to establish that the amount withdrawn from the joint account belonged exclusively to him.

The application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was dismissed.

The Regular First Appeal was dismissed, the Trial Court’s dismissal of the recovery suit was affirmed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.