"C.R." Bhavadasan, J.

1. The plaintiff extended a loan for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the defendant. The defendant was running a ration shop. According to the plaintiff, the loan had to be repaid with 18% interest. The amount was given by way of a cheque on 03.06.1991 and it was encashed by the defendant. Towards the end of 1992, the plaintiff fell into financial stringencies and demanded the amount back from the defendant. Notice issued to the defendant invoked a reply, containing false statements.

Since the defendant had not repaid the amount, the suit was laid.

2. The suit was resisted by the defendant, who admitted receipt of the loan amount. According to him, he had repaid the entire principal amount by 19.03.1992. The repayment was in part payments and since the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was so cordial, the defendant had not insisted for vouchers or receipts from the plaintiff towards the repayments so made. The statements in the reply notice are true. On the basis of these contentions, he prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

3. On the above pleadings, necessary issues were framed by the court below. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 and A2 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendants examined DWs 1 and 2 and had Exts.B1 to B3 marked (the appendix shows only Exts.B1 and B2, but a perusal of the records shows that Ext.B3 has also been marked).

4. On an evaluation of the evidence before it, the trial court accepted the plea of the defendant that the principal amount had been discharged, but granted the plaintiff a decree with regard to the interest due to him. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff comes up in appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the court below has erred in law in placing reliance on Ext.B1, which is the day-book kept by the defendant to uphold the plea of discharge. Even assuming it is a book of accounts kept in the regular course of business, that by itself, is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof cast on the defendant, as his plea is one of discharge. No evidence other than Ext.B1 was adduced by the defendant. The learned counsel also stressed on the inconsistencies in the oral testimony of DWs 1 and 2 and pointed out that those inconsistencies have not been taken note of by the court below. According to the learned counsel, it is rather inconceivable that the defendant would not have taken some documents from the plaintiff to ensure that the repayments said to have been made by him were duly recorded. Ext.B1 is a self-serving document and it cannot be the sole basis to negative the claim of the plaintiff. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Chandradhar v. Gauhati Bank (AIR 1967 SC 1058), Shambhu Bhat v. Karnataka Vyavasaya Varthaka Sangha Ltd. (1987(1) KLT 768) and Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C.Shukla (AIR 1998 SC 1406).

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, pointed out that it is not correct to say that the decision against the plaintiff was based, solely on Ext.B1 document. There was the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 and also Exts.B1 to B3. The entries in Ext.B1 would clearly show that the principal amount had been repaid. The payments made on various dates have been recorded in Ext.B1 and that has been inspected by the statutory authority. The accounts so made have been audited by DW2. These items of evidence, taken along with Ext.B1 had convinced the court below that the contention put forward by the defendant is probable. According to the learned counsel, the trial court, after having perused the documents, had come to a conclusion that the defendant's case is more probable. It could not be said that the view taken by the trial court was totally wrong or perverse. Even assuming a different view is possible, it may not be appropriate for the appellate court to interfere with the judgment and dec