Money suit evidance

In civil suits, the quality of evidence required is "preponderance of probability" and not "beyond reasonable dooubt".  The plaintiff has to prove either by way of  documentary evidence or by oral evidence or by both to prove such money transaction has probably might have been done.  The money cannot come into existence out of thin air.  The plaintiff might have given the cash to the defendant after withdrawing from the bank or taking loan from some one else.  This transaction can be shown.  Similarly, the defendant might have spent that cash for some particular purpose.  The defendant can be put question from which financial source he achieved that particular purpose.  there are severall ways to prove a fact, but finally one documentary evidence is stronger than million oral statements.   

Thank you for the reply. Of course it is possible to produce the money withdrawal details from bank. Source of money also can be shown. But there is no evidance (either in document or witness) to prove that the money is handed over to the other party. In addition to that, in this case, money was given almost 3 months before the date of marriage. 

Prove the money withdrawal.  Bring the eye witnesses in the presence of whom the cash was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant.  If it was given for any particular purpose, i.e., purchase of car etc. the defendant be put question how he purchased the car etc.  It is not abnormal in Indian conditions money changes hands 3 months earlier to marriage.  In indian context there are several examples, the bride's parents paid even professional education expenses of the son-in-law like medical degree or foreign education, after engagement happened.