IMPORTANT POINT
In suits based on negotiable instruments, interest is governed by Section 80 of the NI Act, which prescribes 18% per annum when no rate is specified, overriding Section 34 of the C.P.C.

JUDGMENT

 This Regular First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.' hereinafter). The defendant in O.S.No.257/2008 on the files of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, has preferred this appeal challenging the decree and judgment in the said suit dated 15.09.2010. The plaintiff is the sole respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff in detail. Perused the trial court records.

3. The parties in this appeal will be referred as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' hereinafter for easy discussion.

4. Tracing the genesis of the case, the plaintiff filed the suit to realise Rs.6,50,000/- from the defendant alleging that the said amount was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff on 24.03.2008 and in discharge of the said sum, he had issued a cheque dated 24.04.2008. When the cheque was presented for collection, the same got dishonoured. Accordingly, Rs.6,89,000/- with future interest was claimed.

5. Defendant filed written statement admitting that he borrowed an amount of Rs.5 lakh from the plaintiff agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum. At the time of borrowing the said sum, two blank signed cheque leafs were given to the plaintiff on 24.03.2008, the date of borrowing the amount. According to the defendant, out of the total sum of Rs.5 lakh as per cheque dated 02.04.2008 drawn on the Indian Bank, Balaramapuram Branch, Rs.2 lakh was repaid.

6. The trial court raised necessary issues and tried the matter. PW1 and PW2 examined and Exts.A1 and A2 marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 and DW2 examined and Exts.B1 and B2 marked on the side of the defendant.

Exts.X1 also marked through PW2.

7. On analysis of evidence, the trial court decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff to realise Rs.6,89,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from the date of suit till realisation from the defendant and his assets.

8. While assailing the verdict of the trial court, the specific case of the defendant is that the amount admittedly borrowed by the defendant is only Rs.5 lakh, out of which Rs.2 lakh was repaid on 02.04.2008 as per Ext.B2 cheque. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, receipt of Rs.2 lakh on the strength of Ext.B2 was proved through the evidence of DW1, the Manager of Indian Bank and Ext.B1 statement. Rather, the same is admitted by the plaintiff who got examined as PW1. Therefore, the trial court went wrong in granting decree for the total claim of Rs.6,50,000/-. According to the learned counsel, Rs.2 lakh covered by Ext.B2 cheque ought to be adjusted towards the debt, and the decree would require interference accordingly.

9. Whereas it is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the plaintiff's case that the defendant borrowed Rs.6,50,000/- on 24.03.2008 and consequently, issuance of Ext.A1 cheque dated 24.04.2008 has been proved. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, though as per Ext.B2, the plaintiff admitted the encashment of Rs.2 lakh from the account of the defendant, the same pertains to a different transaction. According to the plaintiff, the same was for a transaction on 10.02.2008 as deposed by PW1 during cross-examination. Therefore, the trial court verdict is only to be justified.

10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on a decision of this Court reported in Ravi Prasad v. Chithra P. Nair [2023 KHC 32] to contend that once the signature of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument is established, then the 'reverse onus' clauses become operative and in such cases, the obligation shifts on the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, in this matter, going by the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the tra