The appellate court should be slow to interfere in the finding of fact arrived at by the trial court and when it wants to reverse the finding, the appellate court is required to discuss the reasons given by the trial court in support of its finding.

M. C. JAIN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants appeal against the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the District Judge, Balotra, Shri B. C. Ojha on 30-9-67 modifying the preliminary decree passed by Shri R. L. Gupta, Civil Judge, Balotra on 30-1-67 in Civil Suit No. 146/1956 for the sale of the mortgage property. The Civil Judge passed the preliminary decree for Rs. 400 as principal amount and Rs. 262 on account of interest, in all for Rs. 662, whereas the learned District Judge disbelieving the plea of payment of Rs. 2,100 towards principal and Rupees 350 towards interest, decreed the plaintiffs suit in toto for a sum of Rupees 2,500 as principal amount and Rupees 800 as interest, total Rs. 3,300.

( 2 ) THE case has a chequered career or history. In order to appreciate the points of controversy arising in this appeal, it would be necessary to state a few facts in chronological order.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff Rawatmal instituted a suit for sale of the mortgage property in the Court of Civil Judge, Balotra on 22-5-56 alleging that the defendant chandanmal mortgaged his house described in para 1 of the plaint on Kartik sudi 14,samvat 2006, corresponding to 23-11-50 for a sum of Rs. 2,500 with interest @ 9% per annum. The defendant executed a rent note in favour of the plaintiff and under the terms of mortgage deed, the mortgage amount was to be paid by 22-11-53. The defendant did not pay the mortgage amount as also interest after Baisakh Sudi 14, Samvat 2009. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 2,500 as principal amount and Rs. 800 as interest and prayed for a preliminary decree for the sale of the mortgage property,

( 4 ) THE defendant admitted the execution of the mortgage deed. His main defence was that on Posh Sudi 13, Samvat 2012 corresponding to 25-1-56, he paid a sum of Rs, 300 towards interest and a sum of Rs, 2,100 towards principal to the plaintiff at Balotra and obtained a receipt Ex, A-1 for Rs. 2,400 and he also pleaded that a sum of Rs. 50 was paid at the instance of the plaintiff on 24-6-54 to Shri Narsingh Raj Bhansali, Advocate.

( 5 ) IN the rejoinder, the plaintiff denied having received a sum of Rs. 2,400 and he also denied the execution of the receipt Ex, A-l. He alleged that on this date, he was not at Balotra. For a sura of Rs. 50, he stated that he did not authorise the defendant to pay that amount to Shri N. R, Bhansali.

( 6 ) THE trial court framed the necessary issues and recorded the evidence of both the parties. The defendant examined D. W. l Ghewarchand, attesting witness to Ex. A-1, D. W. 2 Kanmal, a witness in whose presence Ex. A-1 is said to have been executed, D. W. 3 Naraindas as an identifier of the writing of the plaintiff Rawatmal, D. W. 4 N. R. Bhansali, Advocate and D, W. 5 Chandanmal defendant.

( 7 ) IN rebuttal, the plaintiff Rawatmal examined himself as P. W. 1 and produced ranmal P. W. 2, Ghisulal P. W. 3, Lachiram P. W. 4, Rughnathmal P. W. 5 and bhimraj P. W- 6. Shri L. N. Purohit, the then Civil Judge after hearing the arguments, decreed the plaintiffs suit for a sum of Rs. 400 as principal amount and Rs. 262 as interest and passed a preliminary decree for this sum on 22-7 58. The plaintiff went in appeal before the District Judge, Shri Gopalmal Mehta, district Judge, Balotra, (as he then was) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge on 2-2-5d. The plaintiff then preferred a second appeal. In second appeal, the case was remanded to the learned District judge, Balotra in the following terms on 4-12-64: "accordingly, I allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge of Balotra dated February 2, 1959 and send the case back to the learned District Judge with the direction that he should allow the plaintiff an opportunity to cross-examine ghewarchand D. W. 1 and then to dispose of the appeal afresh according to the law. It may be made clear that there will be no occasion for the recording of any further evidence by way