INTRODUCTORY FACTS:

M/s.Srinivasa Rice Miller represented by its proprietor, the defendant in O. S. No. 59 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam preferred the present appeal. The respondent herein M/s.Satyasri Rice Mill Contractors Company represented by its managing partner, the plaintiff in the suit filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.84,931-51 ps., together with future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of realization and for the costs of the suit. An amount of Rs.55,947/- was deposited even before the settlement of issues and in relation to the rest of the suit claim the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and D.Ws.1 to 3 was recorded, Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 and Ex.B.1 to B.57 were marked and ultimately the learned Judge decreed the suit partly for Rs.15,777/- together with interest @ 15% per annum from 18.8.1987 till realization and also directed the defendant to pay interest @ 15% per annum from 31.10.1986 to 18.8.1987 on Rs.71,924/-, and negatived the relief of damages of Rs.5,000/- and also the rest of the suit claim, awarded proportionate costs of the suit, i.e., court fee paid on Rs.71,924/- plus interest calculated @ 15% per annum and not advocate fee since an amount of Rs.55,947/- was deposited before settlement of issues, but however, advocate fee on Rs.15,777/- plus interest calculated @ 15% per annum till the date of filing of the suit, had been granted. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

SUBMISSIONS OF J.BHASKAR RAO. REPRESENTING V.S.R.ANJANEYULU:

2. Sri J.Bhaskar Rao, the learned counsel representing V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, the counsel for appellant-defendant, made the following submissions:

The learned counsel had taken this court through the findings, which had been recorded by the trial Court and would maintain that the said findings are not in accordance with the evidence available on record. The learned counsel also had pointed out that the learned Judge placed strong reliance on the evidence of P.W.2, but however, the learned counsel would comment that P.W.2 cannot be said to be a disinterested witness in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel also pointed out that the rice supplied by the respondent-plaintiff was not in conformity with the sample shown to the appellant-defendant by P.W.2. The learned counsel also had pointed to the evidence of D.W.1 in detail and also would maintain that the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3 also would establish that as agreed upon the same quality and same variety of rice had not been supplied but what was supplied, was of inferior quality and in the light of the same merely because there is some delay, the same cannot be taken as deemed acceptance of the goods as it is by appellant-defendant and this approach adopted by the learned Judge cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would submit that the observation made by the Court that Ex.B.1 to B.53 may not help the appellant-defendant also cannot be sustained. The counsel also made an effort to convince this court that there is no trade custom in relation to payment of interest in rice business and hence, the awarding of interest by the learned Judge also cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also explained Sections 17 to 41 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

SUBMISSIONS OF SRI CH. RAMAKRISHNA REPRESENTING V.V. PRABHAKAR RAO:

3. Sri Ch. Ramakrishna representing V.V. Prabhakar Rao, the counsel for respondent-plaintiff, made the following submissions.

The learned counsel pointed to certain of the admissions made by D.W.1 and also the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and had also pointed out to the counter foils wherein the terms and conditions relating to the supply of goods had been incorporated. The learned counsel also would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, P.W.2 can be taken as an agent and the evidence of P.W.2 is very crucial. In the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 if carefully scrutinized it is