The burden of proof lies with the party making a claim, and failure to discharge this burden can result in the dismissal of the claim.

1. Defendant Smt. Davinder Kaur having concurrently lost before the two Courts below has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiff Bimla Devi had filed a suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated October 20,1993 executed by her in favour of the defendants Smt. Devinder Kaur wife of Tarlochan Singh and Tarlochan Singh himself. Additionally, a relief for possession of the house in question was sought. In the alternative, the plaintiff claimed recovery of Rs.1,85,000/- alongwith interest. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the sale deed in question had been executed before the Sub Registrar and payment of Rs.1,85,000/- was made through a demand draft. However, on account of relationship between the parties, the defendants after coming out of the office of Sub register took back the aforesaid demand draft with a promise to pay sale consideration within a week. The sale consideration was not paid. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit.

3. The defendants contested the suit and took a stand that it was the plaintiff who had asked the defendants that since the encashment of the draft would take long time, therefore, she be paid cash. In these circumstances, the demand draft was returned by the plaintiff and consequently the amount of sale consideration was paid in cash.

4. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the amount of sale consideration by way of cash, as claimed by the defendants was not paid by them to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff for Rs.1,85,000/- along with 18% per annum was decreed by the learned trial Court. However, on an appeal filed by defendant No.1, the learned First appellate Court re-affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial court but reduced the rate of interest to 9% per annum. Shri K. S. Cheema, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that there was no occasion for the plaintiff to have reposed the confidence in the defendants, inasmuch as, as per her own statement there was no close relationship between the parties. The learned counsel has also contested the rate of interest as awarded by the learned First Appellate Court. I have duly considered the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel but find myself unable to agree with the same. The case set up by the defendants themselves is that the amount of demand draft was returned by the plaintiff. They, however, pleaded that after return of the demand draft, they had paid the amount of sale consideration by way of cash. Therefore, the defendants by taking the aforesaid plea had invited the burden of proof upon themselves. The said onus was required to be discharged by leading cogent evidence. The evidence led by the defendants does not prove that the amount of sale consideration had been in fact paid by them to the plaintiff as claimed by them. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel that there was no evidence with regard to relationship between the parties cannot be accepted. The rate of interest at the rate of 18% per annum was awarded by the learned trial court but the same was reduced by the learned First Appellate Court.

5. The said rate of interest cannot be held to be excessive in any manner. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.