1. This appeal under under Section 100 CPC is preferred challenging the judgement and decree dated 24.06.2008 passed by the Trail Court in O.S.Nos.131/2003, thereby decreeing the suit filed by the respondent herein seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.1,53,422/- along with future interest at 15% per auuum from the date of the suit till realization. Liability to pay the amount has been fastened jointly and severally on defendants I(a), I(b) & I(c).

2. Aggrieved by this judgement, the legal representatives of defendant I(a) preferred R.A.Nos89/2009. As the said appeal was belated, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the application holding that no sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay of 307 days in filling the appeal. Consequently, the appeal also has been dismissed. In the circumstances, aggrieved by the judgement aand decree passed by both the courts below, this regular second appeal is preferred.

3. Facts leading to this appeal, stated in nutshell are, that defendant No,1 – M/s. Amith Financiers, a registered partnership concern was dealing in the business of financing. Defendants 1(a) to (c) were partners of the said firm from 1987 onwards. Plaintiff sums of money in defendant Nos.1-partnership firm with the fond hope that she will get assured interest and would get back her money after the inverstments got matured. According to him, at the instance of defendent Nos. 1(a) – Nagesh Rayakar, she gave money to him on 29.01.1987 in a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque, she deposited Rs.6000/- and again on 21.02.1993 through cheque, bearing No.145988, she has deposited Rs.15,000/- . Later on, on 13.03.1995 another sum of Rs.25,000/- was invested followed by another sum of Rs.59,000/- through cheques dated 11.12.1995. Thus, she contended that in all a total sum of Rs.1,14,000/- was invested as deposited, which was evidenced by the respective receipts issued by the firm.

4. According to him, the defendant had agreed to pay interest at 15% per annum on the deposited amount. Though the defendant paid interest till 31.03.2001, subsequently they failed to pay interest as promised, therefore, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 13.05.2003. The registered notice was served on the first partner, but the notice issued to the other defendants were returned unclaimed.

5. The defendants resisted the suit. Defendant Nos1(a) – Nagesh Rayakar contended that he was the partner of 1st defendant-firm till 1994 and that as back as in the year 1994, he retired from the partnership firm which was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. He urged that the plaintiff appeared to have continued to enjoy the benefits by receiving monthly interest on her deposits. He further urged that inspite of all these facts, plaintiff has intentionally made defendant No.1(a) as a party with ulterior motives in order to make wrongful gain. As we are not concerned with the defence setup by the other defendants, it is unnecessary to dilate on that.

6. The Trail Court framed the following issues

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves thay she had made deposits in the defendant No.1 firm on various dates as pleaded?

(ii) Whether plaintiff proves that defendants have not paid interest from 31.03.2001?

(iii) Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by time?

(iv) Whether defendant No.1(b) proves that in collution with defendant No.1(c) by creating documents, suit filed?

(v) Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief sought for?

(vi) What order or decree?

7. On behalf of the plaintiff, she examined herself and produces Exs.P1 to P13. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1(a) – K.Nagesh Rayakar died on 28.11.2006. His wife and two sons of the being the legal representatives came on record. One of the sons of defendant No.1(a) was examined as DW-1 and another witness was examined as DW-2.Exs.D1(a) were produced and marked.

8. Based on t