HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY APPEAL SUIT No.3308 OF 1992 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.78 of 1986 dated 30-10-1992 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal. 2. Appellant is defendant and respondent is plaintiff. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the suit before the trial Court. 4. Plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,89,052-73 paise and interest thereon from the defendant based on two promissory notes. 5. According to the plaintiff, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from it on 11-01-1984 and the same was paid to him vide cheque bearing No.0034838 dated 11-01-1984 of Bank of India and another sum of Rs.50,000/- on 31-03-1984 vide cheque dated 31-03- 1984 and thus a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was borrowed by the defendant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 17% per annum. Defendant executed two promissory notes and paid interest up to 03-10-1984 only and thereafter he neither paid principal amount nor interest. Hence, the suit. 6. Defendant filed written statement admitting borrowing the total amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, but contended that interest was collected at 36% per annum and he used to pay interest without any acknowledgement or receipt and interest was paid till 06-04-1986 and that at the request of the plaintiff, remittances of interest were entered in the books of M/s. Madrasi Beedi Factory at 17% per annum. He is an income tax assessee and account books revealed payment. The rate of interest claimed is high and if the suit is decreed, he may be granted installments. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial: “1. Whether the plaintiff firm was registered under the partnership Act ? and whether Seetharama Reddy, who signed the plaint, is a partner of plaintiff firm ? 2. Whether the suit pronote is materially altered ? 3. Whether the defendant paid Rs.1,10,500/- towards interest till 6-4-86 ? 4. Whether the agreed interest payable by the defendant is 17% per annum but was collected at 35% p.a. ? 5. Whether the plaintiff was granted money lender’s licence ? 6. Whether the defendant is entitled to discharge the debt in monthly instalments of Rs.500/- p.m. 7. To what relief is plaintiff entitled ?” 8. To prove its case, plaintiff got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of the defendant, he got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-6. 9. Based on the material on record, trial Court decreed the suit with lesser rate of interest. Aggrieved of the same, defendant filed this appeal. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 11. Even as per the written statement, there is no dispute about defendant borrowing the suit amount. His only contention is that rate of interest is high and that he has discharged certain amount but the same was not given credit to. 12. Defendant filed Exs.B-1 to B-5 showing that an amount of Rs.6,375/- was paid on 24-01-1986 under Ex.B-1, Rs.25,500/- on 13-10-1985 under Ex.B-2, Rs.17,708-32 paise on 30-10-1984 under Ex.B-3, Rs.18,472-24 paise on 03-10-1984 under Ex.B-4 and Rs.7,125/- on 24-01-1986 under Ex.B-5. PW.1, representative of the plaintiff, never denied about the above amounts being paid by the defendant and the suit was decreed by deducting those amounts towards interest at 12% per annum and remaining amount deducting towards principal. Thus, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.1,18,903-98 paise with interest at 12% per annum, as against the suit claim of Rs.1,89,052-73 paise and interest at 17% per annum, after giving credit to the amounts paid by the defendant towards interest by calculating the interest at 12% per annum and the remaining amount deducting towards principal. 13. In the grounds of appeal also, defendant argued that plaintiff is not a registered firm, as such, the suit is not maintainable under Section 63(i) of the Indian Partnership Act. But, Ex.A-1 extract of partnership firm filed by the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff firm is a registered one. Thus, contention of the defendant is not at all tenable, as the plaintiff firm is a registered one and proper credit is given for the amounts paid by the defendant. Hence, absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court, and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 16, 2010. PV