The burden of proof lies with the party introducing evidence, and mere admission of documents does not constitute proof under the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2019 and 17.06.2019 respectively, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court no. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Money Suit No. 43/2016 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The plaintiff [respondent here-in] had filed a suit for realization of money from the defendants [the appellants here-in], primarily, the defendant no. 1 for a sum of Rs. 10,40,000/- (Rupees ten lakh forty thousand) only along with an interest @ 6% per annum till satisfaction of the decree. The facts as narrated by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division may be reproduced here-in-below:-

'The plaintiff is a proprietor firm dealing with construction items like iron rod, cement, sand etc. and has his shop at Nagerjala. The defendant No. 1 is an Engineer and is a Central Government Employee. The defendant No. 2 is his mother. Said defendant No. 1 on several occasions purchased iron rod from the shop of the complainant. He took rod worth Rs. 10,40,000/- (Rupees Ten lacs Forty thousand) only. He purchased those rods in the last week of May 2015, but on credit. The defendant No. 1 assured the plaintiff to pay the amount by first week of July 2015. Thereafter, on 19.06.2015 the said defendant came to the shop of the plaintiff and issued a cheque bearing No. 802782 in favour of the plaintiff of the same amount drawn up from Tripura Gramin Bank Vide SB A/C No. 8004010005593. At the same time the defendant No. 1 made a request to the plaintiff to deposit the cheque in the month of June 2015. Accordingly, the plaintiff presented the cheque on 20.06.2015. But the said cheque was returned without being honoured due to insufficient fund. On being informed, the defendant No. 1 requested to deposit the same in the first week of October 2015. But again on being presented on 05.10.2015, the cheque was again dishonoured due to the same reason. On the third occasion, the defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiff to deposit the cheque on 1st week of December 2015. Regrettably on this occasion also the cheque got bounced due to insufficient fund. Defendant No. 2 being the mother of defendant No. 1 on several occasions came to the shop of the plaintiff and made a promissory note to pay the said amount, but none of the defendants could pay the money due to the plaintiff.

The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement stating that the suit is not maintainable on the ground of cause of action and to be barred by Principles of estoppels, waiver etc. It is also the case that the defendant No. 1 purchased some materials from the plaintiff and for making payment of the same issued a cheque drawn of Tripura Gramin Bank, Abhoy Nagar, Branch in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant further admitted that the said cheque on presentation got dishonoured due to insufficient fund. In addition, the defendants further stated that the defendant No. 2 gave three non-judicial stamp papers signed by them which were blank for satisfaction of the plaintiff. The defendant most importantly, stated that defendant No. 1 paid the entire suit money in cash though did not mention the date and place of such payment further stating that even after making the payment the plaintiff did not return the original cheque and the blank non-judicial stamp paper. The defendants narrated that the plaintiff did not return back the cheque and the stamp paper on the excuse that those cheque and stamp paper got damaged by water. In short the defendants claimed that the money due has got satisfied by them in cash and hence this suit is liable to be dismissed.'

3. At the commencement of trial, the following issues w