Synopsis

The plaintiff advanced a friendly loan of ₹8,50,000 to the defendant no.1 and her husband under a written agreement dated 06.11.2015. Multiple cheques issued by the husband were dishonoured. After the husband’s death, the plaintiff sued the legal heirs for recovery. The defendants failed to appear during evidence stage and were proceeded ex‑parte; their application under order ix rule 7 cpc was dismissed. the trial court decreed the suit. in appeal, the defendants raised two grounds: (i) signatures on the loan agreement and cheques were forged, and (ii) they inherited no assets from the deceased. the high court dismissed the appeal, holding that the defendants’ bare plea of forgery, without cross‑examination or evidence, cannot displace the plaintiff’s unchallenged documentary evidence; and that legal heirs are liable to the extent of the estate inherited, but the burden to show no estate devolved lies on them.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 12th May 2026

Citation: RFA (Regular First Appeal) No. ... (unreported, available with court)

Core Law: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 (appeal from decree), Order IX Rule 7 (setting aside ex parte order), Order XLI (appeal procedure); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 101-104 (burden of proof), Section 114 (presumption); Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137; Indian Succession Act, 1925 – liability of legal heirs.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Regular first appeal (rfa) no. ... /2023

Smt. chaman lata bhardwaj and ors. (appellants) vs. Smt. nirmal devi (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble ms. justice neena bansal krishna

Date: 12th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.