A. S. BAGGA, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal filed by the original plaintiff is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-9-1990 passed by n additional District Judge, Buldana in Regular Civil Appeal No. 83/1987. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal by the plaintiff are as follows.

( 2 ) A suit was brought by the appellant original plaintiff against the respondents original defendants for recovery of sum of Rs. 27,170/- as the price of goods sold and the interest thereon. It was the plaintiffs case that he is agriculturist. The defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and his partners- defendants purchased 87. 35 quintals of jaggery from the plaintiff valued at rs. 27,170/ -. The price of the goods was not paid at the time of its delivery. The defendant No. 2 however promised to pay the said amount shortly. On insistence by the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 handed over a cheque for Rs. 11835. 94 bearing no. 04284 dated 20-9-1983. The balance amount was agreed to be paid within 15 days. But, on demand, the defendants avoided. On enquiry by the plaintiff it came to be known that there were no funds in the account of the defendants in the bank. The plaintiff, therefore, approached the defendants. The defendant No. 3 issued four cheques in favour of the plaintiff. These four cheques borne numbers from 00830 to 00833 for the sums of Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 7,500/- and rs. 7,670/- respectively. These cheques were postdated cheques dated as 21-5- 1984, 31-5-1984, 22-6-1984 and 4-7-1984 respectively. None of the cheques, on presentation, were honoured. The plaintiff, therefore, served the defendants with notice dated 12-11-1984 calling upon them to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques. This notice was not replied by the defendants. Another notice dated 4-10-1985 was issued by the plaintiff to which a false reply was given. The defendants denied their liability, hence the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount with interest.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS resisted the suit by filing their written statement at Exh. 12. It was admitted that the first cheque of Rs. 11,835. 94 dated 20-9-1983 was issued by them. It was also admitted in the written statement that four cheques, numbers of which are given in the plaint, were issued in favour of the plaintiff. It was, however denied that jaggery worth Rs. 27,170/- was purchased by the defendants. It was pleaded by the defendants that there were money lending transaetions between the plaintiff and the defendants commission agency shop. It was also stated in the written statement that whenever purchase were made, tak-parti used to be given, but no such receipt of purchase of jaggery was given in this case. It was their case that suit transaction pertains only to the money lending transaction. It was stated that the loan amount was repaid by them from time to time with interest. It was their case that they had cleared all debts of the plaintiff and at the time of clearing entire dues, the defendants demanded cheques which they had issued. But the plaintiff stated that the cheques have been lost and the defendants believed the plaintiff. It was also pleaded by the defendants that the cheques were issued by them under coercion and misrepresentation.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge, on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence as was led by the parties, recorded findings that the plaintiff had proved sale of jaggery worth Rs. 27,170/- to the defendants and that the cheques had been issued by the defendants against the price of jaggery. Holding further that the defendants did not prove that the plaintiff was running money lending business and that the transaction was loan transaction, the learned trial Judge proceeded to decree the suit against the plaintiff for Rs. 27,170/- with interest @ 12% per annum. Against the said judgment and decree, the original defendants preferred appeal. The appellate court by the impugn