S.S. Sundar, J.

The plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit in O.S.No.117 of 2004 (originally it was O.S.No.24 of 1997) on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, are the appellants in the second appeal. The appellants are the legal heirs of one C.Rajammal, who is the first plaintiff in the suit.

2. It was the case of the first plaintiff in the suit that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as loan on 12.03.1994 and had executed a Rekai acknowledging receipt of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the first plaintiff. It was the further case of the first plaintiff that the defendant had not paid either the principal or interest towards repayment of loan. It was also the case of the first plaintiff that the defendant did not pay the amount despite several demands and that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.67,000/- as on the date of filing the suit and hence, the suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.67,000/-.

3. The respondent/defendant filed a written statement denying the receipt of Rs.50,000/- from the first plaintiff and the liability to pay any amount to the first plaintiff. However, in the later part of the written statement, the respondent/defendant admitted that the first plaintiff and her daughter Sarojini had given a complaint to recover the amount from the defendant and that as a result, the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.29,000/- through her husband. Defendant also pleaded that an agreement was signed by plaintiff and her daughter on one side and defendant and her husband on the other side. Thus according to the defendant only a sum of Rs.21,000/- has to be repaid as per the said agreement. Thus, it was the definite case of the respondent/defendant that the alleged loan was partially discharged and that the respondent/defendant is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.21,000/-.

4. The trial Court after framing necessary issues found that the respondent/defendant is liable to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/- as received under Ex.A1, the document styled as Rekai, executed by the respondent/defendant in favour of the first plaintiff. Since the respondent/defendant has not chosen to examine herself as witness, the trial Court has drawn adverse inference against the respondent/defendant and found that the document Ex.A1 is proved. The trial Court also considered the case of the respondent/defendant regarding the repayment of certain amounts and held that the repayment pleaded by the respondent/defendant is with reference to some other transaction and that the respondent/defendant failed to prove the repayment of any amount towards the borrowal of Rs.50,000/- as acknowledged under Ex.A1. However, the trial Court was of the view that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any interest till the suit was filed, as the document Ex.A1 does not specify any interest. Therefore, the trail Court decreed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the appellants/plaintiffs with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.44 of 2011 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. The appellate Court accepted the case of the plaintiffs and found that the document Ex.A1 is proved. However, the appellate Court found that the document Ex.A1 is not a promissory note to treat the same as a negotiable instrument. The lower appellate Court, further, found that the payment of amounts as pleaded by the respondent/defendant are not in connection with some other transaction but in relation to the suit transaction. Hence, after deducting a sum of Rs.29,000/-, which according to the lower appellate Court, the amounts paid by the respondent/defendant to the first plaintiff in connection with the loan transaction under Ex.A1, the appellate Court modified the decree by directing recovery of only a sum of Rs.21,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the modified decree o