Ajit Borthakur, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 96 read with order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 18.05.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Capital Complex, Yupia in Title Suit No. 03/2015, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed. The plaintiff/appellant's case, in a nutshell, is that the plaintiff/appellant had taken a loan of Rs. 70,00,000/- (seventy lakhs) on different dates by executing promissory notes on respective dates from the defendant/respondent promising to refund the loan amount along with interest @ 10%, per month, and to secure the loan, the plaintiff/appellant had given on security her RCC building at Itanagar and some ornaments. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff/appellant had made re-payment of Rs. 70,92,337/- (Seventy lakhs ninety two thousand three hundred and thirty seven) till filing of the suit in excess of the principal loan amount. However, in terms of the promissory notes, the plaintiff/appellant has to pay the balance amount of Rs. 77,77,663/- (seventy seven lakhs seventy thousand and six hundred and Sixty three) only. The plaintiff/appellant has expressed her willingness to repay the balance loan amount with interest at the rate prescribed for similar transactions by the Reserve Bank of India i.e. @ 14% per annum. Hence, prayed for a decree.

2. The defendant/respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement, inter-alia, on the grounds that the plaintiff/appellant had taken the loan amount for execution of contract work under PMGSY for construction of road from Barijo to Rika, and was paid on repeated request of the plaintiff/appellant. The plaintiff/appellant accepted the loan amount with interest @ 10% per month voluntarily. The defendant/respondent denied having received re-payment of the entire principal amount from the plaintiff except for Rs. 14,70,000/- (Fourteen lakhs seventy thousand) and the gold chain valued approximately at Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) which was delivered to her as security. Therefore, the plaintiff/appellant has not paid the balance amount of Rs. 77,77,663/- (Seventy seven lakhs seventy seven thousand and Six hundred and sixty three). The defendant/respondent further denied having acknowledged receipt of money from the plaintiff/appellant and putting of her signatures in the money receipts for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs) on 9.3.2013; Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty five lakhs) on 9.3.2013; and Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty lakhs) on 05.09.2013 respectively and thus alleged to have forged her signatures on the purported money receipts by the plaintiff. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

3. On the basis of the rival pleadings and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Court below framed the following issues:-

"(1) Whether the defendant is authorized to lend money as per law?

(2) Whether the plaintiff had taken loan from the defendant if so, how much?

(3) How much money the plaintiff has returned to the defendants?

(4) Whether the signature of the defendant in money receipt dated 10.04.2013, and 05.09.2013 are forged?

(5) To what other relief or relieves the parties are entitled to?".

4. In order to establish the claim, the plaintiff/appellant examined 4 (four) witnesses. The defendant/respondent did not adduce any evidence. The learned Court below after having gone through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses and further, hearing the learned counsel of both the sides, the learned Court below dismissed the suit on the point of maintainability.

5. So far the issue No. 1 is concerned, the learned Court below answered the same in the negative and against the plaintiff/appellant holding that the evidence on record reveals that the transaction of lending money was purely private in nature on need basis with interest as per mutual agreement and understanding between the parties. The learned Court below answered