( 1 ) THIS is defendant's appeal from the judgment and decree dated 15-3-1997 delivered by Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the plaintiffs claim for a sum of Rs. 1,05,590/- together with the costs and current interest at the rate of 18% per annum in O. S. No. 4739 of 1992. The plaintiffs case is that under an agreement for sale, the plaintiff had agreed to sell and the defendant had agreed to purchase the property belonging to the plaintiff, as mentioned in the plaint. That vide agreement dated 12-11-1987, entered between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant had agreed to purchase the properties mentioned in the plaint for a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/ -. That the defendant had paid advance sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the date of agreement and it was agreed the sale transaction will be completed within six months from the date of agreement after payment of balance sum of sale consideration. That the plaintiff acknowledged the receipt of the said amount. That as per plaint case, defendant on 16-11-1987 and on 17-2-1988 respectively paid sums of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000 and by two cheques dated 6-4-1988 for Rs. 12,000/- and dated 15-4-1988 for Rs. 48,000/-, the balance sum of Rs. 60,000/- was being paid. But, when the cheques were tendered to the bank for encashment, they were dishonoured. The plaintiffs case is that the plaintiff gave a notice calling upon the defendant to pay all the unpaid sale consideration as the cheques issued by the respondent had been dishonoured. This notice was given on 7-1-1992. These two cheques were dishonoured on 30-4-1988. The plaintiff filed the suit on 24-7-1992.

( 2 ) THE defendant filed the written statement taking various pleas and the plea that the defendant is not liable to pay any interest or interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The defendant took the plea that the plaintiff has got no cause of action as the defendant has paid entire amount of Rs. 60,000/- in cash. In the written statement a plea of limitation has also been raised.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues. 1. WHETHER the plaintiff proves that the defendant had issued a post-dated cheque for Rs. 12,000/-, dated 6-4-1988. 2. WHETHER the defendant is liable to pay interest at 18% per annum to the plaintiff?3. WHETHER the defendant proves that he paid the plaintiff Rs. 48,000/- in cash and the plaintiff did not return the dishonoured cheque?4. WHETHER the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs. 1,05,590/-?5. WHAT decree?

( 4 ) THE Trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence, decreed the suit taking the view that if the theory set up by the defendant that after the cheques were bounced or dishonoured, he paid the money in cash, then, why he did not take the receipt for the amount paid particularly when according to the defendant the plaintiff was not giving back those cheques. The Court below did not find any reason for the defendant not taking the receipts for the said sum. The Court, therefore, rejected the theories set up by the defendant/appellant and as such, decreed the suit.

( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, defendant has come up before this Court by appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

( 6 ) I have heard Smt. Gowhar Unnisa holding brief for Sri M. Erappa Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Kalyan Basavaraj for Sri Muniyappa, learned Counsel for the respondent.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had paid in cash and the Trial Court erred and acted illegally in not relying on the evidence of the plaintiff. She further submitted that the tinding to the effect that the defendant had failed to prove the payment of balance sum in form of cash is erroneous. Smt. Gowhar Unnisa further submitted that the plaintiffs suit had been barred by time.

( 8 ) THESE contentions of the appellant's Counsel have hotly been