Often, yes, and I would not write off a loan because there is no stamped agreement. What decides these cases is whether the chats reach the court in a form it can act on, and whether they sit on top of a bank entry that shows the money moving. The general rules for electronic evidence are in our answer on proving something with WhatsApp messages and, in more detail, in our guide to WhatsApp chats as evidence. This answer applies them to one problem: a loan with nothing behind it but a conversation.
Will the court even look at my chats?
Only if you satisfy Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which carried forward Section 65B of the Evidence Act from 1 July 2024. Under Section 63(1), information in an electronic record that is printed, stored or copied from a computer or communication device is treated as a document and is admissible without the original, provided the conditions in sub-section (2) are met: the device was regularly used, the information was fed in the ordinary course, the device was operating properly, and the output reproduces what was fed in. Sub-section (4) is the gate. A certificate must be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance it is tendered, identifying the record, describing how it was produced, giving particulars of the device, and dealing with the conditions, and it must be signed by the person in charge of the device and by an expert. The Adhiniyam prescribes the form in its Schedule: Part A for you as the party, Part B for the expert.
The Supreme Court settled the strictness of this in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, decided on 14 July 2020 under the old section. A three judge bench held the certificate to be a condition precedent to admissibility, overruled the contrary view in Shafhi Mohammad, and clarified one exception that matters to you: the certificate is unnecessary if the original device itself is produced, which the owner of a mobile phone can do by stepping into the witness box and proving that the phone on which the information was first stored is owned and operated by him. So you have two routes. Export and certify, or keep the phone and bring it.
| Item | How it goes in | What it proves |
|---|---|---|
| Bank statement showing the transfer | Certified copy from the bank, or the electronic statement with a Section 63(4) certificate | That the money left you on a date and reached him |
| WhatsApp thread, exported | Section 63(4) certificate, Parts A and B of the Schedule, filed with the record each time | That the transfer was a loan, the terms, and any admission |
| The phone itself | Produced in court and proved by you as owner and operator, per Arjun Panditrao | The same, without a certificate, and the strongest answer to a forgery plea |
| Screenshots alone | Still computer output, still need the certificate | Weak if cropped, since context is what is attacked |
| His number and identity | The number on the chat header, saved contact, call records obtained through the court | That the account you were talking to is his |
What proves the loan itself?
The money trail first, the chats second. A bank transfer or UPI entry showing the sum leaving your account and landing in his is the fact the court cannot argue with, and the chat is the explanation of why: that it was a loan, not a gift or a payment for something, and when it was to come back. A cash loan with only chats behind it is a much harder case, because the chats then have to prove both the advance and its character, and the defendant will say the messages refer to something else. If the loan was in cash, the messages that matter most are the ones where he names the amount and promises to return it.
Then look at the date. Article 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 gives three years for money payable for money lent, running from when the loan is made. Section 18 extends it where, before the three years expire, he acknowledges the liability in a writing signed by him, and a fresh three years runs from that acknowledgement. The Explanation says it is enough even if the acknowledgement omits the exact amount, says the time to pay has not come, or is coupled with a refusal to pay. Whether a WhatsApp message is a writing signed by him for this purpose turns on how the court reads the electronic records law alongside Section 18, and it is not a point I would treat as settled. Take the message you have, but file the suit inside the original three years if you can.
Which suit should I file?
Probably an ordinary money suit. Order XXXVII Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure limits the summary procedure to suits on bills of exchange, hundis and promissory notes, and to claims for a debt or liquidated demand arising on a written contract, an enactment or a guarantee. A chain of messages fixing an amount and a repayment date might be argued to be a written contract, and if the messages are that clear it is worth pleading the summary suit and letting the court decide whether to convert it. If the terms live in inference rather than in words, file the ordinary suit and prove the loan by evidence. The two procedures are compared in our answer on summary suits, and the suit itself in our guide to money recovery suits.
How do I preserve the chats today?
- Keep the phone. Do not reset it, change handsets, or clear the thread, and back up the chat
- Export the complete conversation from the application, with media, rather than screenshots of selected messages
- Record the export date and, if a forensic examiner is available, hash values for the export files
- Get a certified statement from the bank for the transfer, and the UPI reference number
- Save his contact as stored, with the number visible in the chat header, and note any change of number
- Prepare the Section 63(4) certificate now, Part A in your name and Part B by a person qualified to sign it, and file it with the chats every time they are tendered
- Send a legal notice for the loan by registered post, which fixes the demand and often produces an admission
What if he says the chats are fake?
Produce the phone. Access to the original device is the one answer a forgery plea cannot get around, and Arjun Panditrao is the authority that lets you prove the record that way. If his copy of the thread would settle the question, apply for a direction that he produce his device or a certified export, since the Court in that case expressly preserved the route of asking the court to secure a certificate from a person who controls the device. Corroboration closes the rest: the transfer entry on the same day the chat mentions the amount, the call records around it, and any later message where he asks for time.
What I tell clients is that the case is usually stronger than they fear and weaker than they hope. Stronger, because a transfer plus a thread in which he calls it a loan is real evidence and courts decree on it. Weaker, because the evidence is lost in the handling: a changed phone, a cropped screenshot, a certificate signed by nobody but the plaintiff. Get the paperwork right before the notice goes, file inside three years of the transfer, and treat the chat as the story behind the bank entry rather than a substitute for it.