JUDGMENT :

T. Raja, J.

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2011 decreeing the money suit against the appellant defendant directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 17,78,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of decree.

2. Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant defendant, assailing the impugned judgment, pleaded that the Trial Court has committed error in coming to the conclusion that the appellant defendant has admitted the execution of the document and the borrowal. Based on such erroneous conclusion, the Trial Court has completely lost sight of the evidence of DW1, the appellant herein, who had categorically denied the execution of 14 promissory notes on 05.07.2000 and also borrowal of Rs. 14,00,000/-.

2.1. Arguing further, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the appellant defendant has made a specific case before the Trial Court that he has not borrowed Rs. 14,00,000/- on 05.07.2000 and not even executed 14 promissory notes, the Trial Court overlooking the facts as to what happened prior to 05.07.2000, has completely gone against the appellant defendant. Moreover, the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the case of the appellant, when he having borrowed money from the respondent plaintiff on various dates, which were specifically mentioned in the written statement, repaid the amount. The Trial Court, referring to Section 34 of the Evidence Act, accepting the books of account maintained by the respondent plaintiff showing clearly that the appellant defendant had repaid the entire money back to the respondent plaintiff, refused to apply the above Section 34 of the Evidence Act in favour of the appellant defendant. When it was a specific case of the appellant defendant that he had repaid the loan substantially, which was taken from the respondent plaintiff even before the demand made by him and even in the cross examination, the respondent/plaintiff admitted about the receipt of cash by his son and daughter, the Trial Court had completely overlooked the actual facts of the case and proceeded on the presumption that the appellant defendant had borrowed Rs. 14,00,000/- on 05.07.2000.

2.2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that in support of the stand taken by the appellant defendant, several documents, namely Ex. B1 to Ex. B179 were marked. Though various entries in the form of books of accounts, which were maintained in the regular course of business and vouchers were filed to substantiate the case of the appellant defendant, the Trial Court, without appreciating the same, has brushed aside those documents and failed to consider any of the documents and held that those payments were not made in respect of such liability. Therefore, the approach of the Trial Court was wholly erroneous. Hence, the findings and conclusion reached by the Trial Court are liable to be interfered with by this Court.

2.3. Concluding his argument, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the matter was taken up for admission, this Court, while granting a conditional stay on 21.12.2011, directed the appellant defendant to deposit Rs. 14,00,000/- and granted liberty to the respondent plaintiff to withdraw the said amount and accordingly, Rs. 14,00,000/- has been deposited and the same has also been withdrawn by the respondent/plaintiff. Even if the case of the respondent plaintiff is accepted that after lending the suit amount, the appellant defendant has not paid back the entire amount to the respondent plaintiff, the appellant defendant is liable to pay only Rs. 4,55,189/-. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant further pleaded that in respect of the rate of interest, some concession may be given in the event of dismissing this appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the responde