Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Aditi Kulkarni asks for repayment of ₹60,000 from Nikhil Deshmukh. She says the money was a loan and that Nikhil promised to return it. Nikhil disputes that account and says the money was contributed toward wedding expenses. The hearing record includes the parties’ submissions and a wedding catering receipt described as showing a ₹60,000 payment shortly after the transfer. The alleged chat on which Aditi relies was not produced. 2. The court decides only the repayment claim on the supplied record and rules. The parties’ marital relationship does not itself resolve whether this particular transfer created a debt. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Aditi has proved that the transfer was made on an agreement that Nikhil would repay it, and whether she has proved that any amount remains repayable. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting it. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to unsupported or vague accounts. Under Rule 6, relief must match the harm proved. Submissions of the parties 4. Aditi’s initial submission says she gave Nikhil a ₹60,000 loan and that he promised to return it. She later says a chat clarified that he was ready to pay the amount. Her final submission refers to a transfer record and asks for return of ₹60,000. The chat itself, its date, and its surrounding context are not in the record. Aditi also refers to deposit return and rules about support and ordinary wear, but those matters do not establish a repayment agreement for this transfer. 5. Nikhil says the money was a wedding contribution. He relies on the receipt showing a ₹60,000 catering payment shortly after the transfer. He argues that a later phrase about “settling up” referred to checking wedding bills, not promising repayment. Nikhil acknowledges that the receipt does not prove what the parties agreed and that he has not seen the alleged chat. He asks that the claim be denied, or that no full repayment order be made without proof of the agreement. Evidence and findings 6. The receipt is presented as an available record from Nikhil’s records. Its description supports that a ₹60,000 payment was made for wedding catering shortly after the transfer. The receipt is relevant and has some weight on the use of the money. It does not state who was ultimately responsible for the bill, whether Aditi intended a contribution or a loan, or whether Nikhil promised repayment. The repeated receipt entries in the record describe the same receipt and do not amount to separate corroborating documents. 7. Aditi’s submissions are allegations and arguments, not independent proof of the alleged chat or its contents. Her account identifies a potentially relevant message, but without the message the court cannot assess its exact words, timing, context, or reliability. Nikhil’s explanation of what “settle up” meant is likewise an account, not a verified reading of the chat. The court does not treat either interpretation as established. 8. The transfer itself is asserted in the submissions, and Nikhil’s position accepts that money changed hands. Even taking the transfer and the catering payment as supported, those facts establish movement and use of money, not an agreement to repay. The record does not establish that Nikhil repaid any part, but absence of repayment cannot establish a debt unless the repayment obligation is first proved. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Aditi bears the burden of proving that the money was advanced on a repayment agreement. The receipt supports Nikhil’s account that the money went toward wedding catering, but it does not prove that the payment was a contribution. The court therefore does not find Nikhil’s explanation established merely because the receipt fits it. Equally, the receipt does not support Aditi’s claim of a loan. Aditi’s alleged chat could have been important evidence, but it was not produced, and the court cannot infer its contents from her description alone. Applying Rules 1 and 2, the competing accounts and the receipt do not prove a repayment promise. This issue is not proven. 10. On the second issue, Aditi asks for the full ₹60,000. The receipt supports that amount as a catering payment, but not as a debt owed to Aditi. Because the record does not establish an agreement to repay, it also does not establish that any amount remains repayable. Rule 6 does not permit an award based solely on the amount transferred or spent where the underlying obligation is unproven. This issue is not proven. 11. Nikhil succeeds because Aditi has not met her burden, not because the court has found as fact that Aditi agreed to make a wedding contribution. The record leaves the parties’ original understanding unresolved. The court decides that uncertainty against the party seeking repayment, as Rule 1 requires. No further inquiry is warranted on this closed record; the missing chat cannot be evaluated as evidence that was not supplied. Final order 12. Aditi Kulkarni’s claim for repayment of ₹60,000 is denied. No payment is ordered by either party to the other. The court makes no finding that the transfer was definitively a wedding contribution; it finds only that Aditi has not proved a repayment agreement or a remaining debt on the available record. The defendant prevails on the claim presented.