JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J.- This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree recorded by Sri. H.A. Safwi, District Judge,Jalaun at Orai dated 15.7.1974 by which he reversed decree of learned Civil Judge, Orai dated 6.11.1973 in original suit No. 10 of 1971 and dismissed the suit of plaintiff with costs. 2. It appears that on 21.12.1969 plaintiff sold 100 quintals 20 kilograms wheat to defendant for Rs. 11320.60 at the rate of Rs. 103/- per quintal on credit. On 4.3.70 defendants paid Rs. 2600/- to plaintiff and again Rs. 3000/- on 6.6.1970 towards the same transaction. Thus the plaintiff had already recovered Rs. 5600/-. 3. The remaining amount remained unpaid despite notice of demand and so the suit was filed by plaintiff for recovery of Rs, 5692.60 as price and Rs. 307.40 as interest at the rate of rupees 3 per cent per annum. Future and pendente lite interest along with costs was also claimed. 4. Defence was about payment of full price. According to defendant nothing was due. It was further pleaded that plaintiff had no right to claim interest. 5. Learned trial Judge disbelieved two payments set up in defence viz. of Rs. 400/- on 16.1.1970 and of Rs. 5692.60 on 30.11.1970. 6. So he gave judgment in plaintiff's favour for recovery of Rs. 6000/- together with costs of the suit and future and pendente lite interest. 7. Learned appellate court upheld both these payments and dismissed the claim in to. 8. Aggrieved by the decision plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant it was argued the learned First Appellate court did not set aside the findings recorded by the trial court disbelieving the oral evidence of defendant ; he wrongly observed that defendant paid sales tax and income tax and his account books were maintained in regular course of business. Plaintiff never admitted that defendant maintained his account-books in regular course of business. 10. Learned appellate court also misread evidence when he held that the last entry dated 30.11.1970 was noted in the account books on the occasion of Diwali and so this entry could have been on last page. Diwali fall on 29.10.1970 and so this entry could not have been the last one in the account books of defendant. 11. 10. Learned appellate court also misread evidence when he held that the last entry dated 30.11.1970 was noted in the account books on the occasion of Diwali and so this entry could have been on last page. Diwali fall on 29.10.1970 and so this entry could not have been the last one in the account books of defendant. 11. Obviously burden of proof of payment lay on defendant and not on plaintiff. He did not secure himself with any receipt or writing about Rs. 400/-or about Rs. 5692.60 although he was short of money. Even the entry in his account books about the alleged payments was un-signed by plaintiff even though such payments were never made by defendant without securing any writing from plaintiff. It was not a paltry amount which could have been paid by defendant to plaintiff on parol. There was testimony of Ramgopal plaintiff and a clerk from Allahabad Bank Sri V.M. Misra, P.W. 1. plaintiff denied both these payments. Learned Civil Judge believed the statement of plaintiff and held that the alleged payments were never made and it was a palpably false plea. Had a sum of Rs. 400/- been paid by defendant to plaintiff on 16.1.1970 he could not have signed a cheque for Rs. 11292.60 in favour of plaintiff on the next day without adjustment of Rs. 400/- when he admitted to have remembered this payment while signing the cheque. There was a slip Ext. 2 dated 25.2.1970 by which defendant admitted plaintiff's claim to the extent of Rs. 11292.60. Defendant could not have repeated similar mistake when he issued another cheque for Rs. 5692.60 to plaintiff on 30.8.1970 without adjusting the item of Rs. 400/- in that cheque. Learned Civil Judge pointed out that such mistake was committed thrice by defendant. 12. Ramgopal, P.W. 2, testified that defendant had no ready money to pay in cash to him on 31.12.1969 and so he had issued a post dated cheque by scribing the date 17.1.1970. He further stated that defendant had paid Rs. 2600/- to him on 4.3.1970 and had got a receipt in that regard executed by him. This version of the plaintiff was consistent with the testimony of defendant and the entries of the account books relied upon by defendant. 13. P.W. 2 Ram Gopal further testified that the cheque for the amount of Rs. 2600/- to him on 4.3.1970 and had got a receipt in that regard executed by him. This version of the plaintiff was consistent with the testimony of defendant and the entries of the account books relied upon by defendant. 13. P.W. 2 Ram Gopal further testified that the cheque for the amount of Rs. 11,292 was returned by him on 31.12.1969 as defendant had not that much amount to his credit in the Bank Sri V.M. Misra, P.W. 1. Assistant Officer, Allahabad Bank testified about the account of defendant's Firm in the bank. He further testified that cheque Ext. 1 for a sum of Rs. 5692.60 was never honoured for want of funds in the account of defendant's firm. 14. In his statement defendant could not give any reason as to why he did not reply the notice of demand served on him. He also could not offer any explanation for not procuring any receipt or writing about the alleged payments. He conceded that when he issued cheque Ext. 1 on 30.8.1970 he fully remembered payment of Rs. 400/-. His testimony was lightly discarded by learned Civil Judge who had an occasion to observe his demeanour. It appears that learned appellate court simply believed the statement of defendant and relied on the entry in his account-books which were not free from suspicion. These account books of plaintiff were not duly proved by the statement of his Munim nor these account books bore the seals of the sales tax or income tax department and such self-servicing statement in his account books could have been manipulated by defendant at any time. The reasoning adopted by appellate court to believe the alleged payments were simply flimsy and cannot appeal to any reasonable mind. Entries in books of accounts may be relevant but cannot prove the payment when such entry was suspicious and even the Munim of the plaintiff did not come forward to testify about its accuracy. Defendant's statement could have been corroborated by Munim. Defendant did not even dare to reply the notice Ext. 6 received by him nor offered any explanation about it. So on the evidence on record I agree that the view of learned Civil Judge was wrongly disturbed by 1st appellate court for bogus reasons. Learned civil judge rightly found that plaintiff was also entitled to claim interest according to the market usage. 15. 6 received by him nor offered any explanation about it. So on the evidence on record I agree that the view of learned Civil Judge was wrongly disturbed by 1st appellate court for bogus reasons. Learned civil judge rightly found that plaintiff was also entitled to claim interest according to the market usage. 15. Learned counsel for respondent argued before me that a finding of fact recorded by learned first appellate court cannot be disturbed by the High Court. In this connection reliance was placed upon V. Rama Chandra Ayyar and another v. Ramalingam Chettiar and another reported in A.I.R. 1963, Supreme Court, page 302. It appears that it was a case of partnership and not of payment. 16. Learned counsel for respondent also relied upon Gurbari Lanka and another v. Dulari Thakurani and others reported in AIR 1971, Orissa, page 147, which provides that High Court will not interfere with the finding of lower appellate court merely because on reappreciation of evidence it may reach a different conclusion. 17. It appears that in the instant case there are not concurrent findings of fact but learned lower appellate court went out of the way to set aside the judgment of learned civil Judge and upheld the false plea of payment. It was held in Ramesh Chandra and another v. Ram Rakshpat reported in AIR 1979 Allahabad, page 339 :- "It is true that if the lower appellate court recorded definite findings, in the light of oral evidence and surrounding circumstances, the High Court cannot interfere in second appeal and cannot attempt to re appreciate the evidence. But where the appellate Court discarded the entire oral and documentary evidence and based his finding simply on one circumstance appearing in the case without negativing the facts found by the trial court it could not be said that the finding of fact recorded by the appellate Court could not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Thus in the instant case I find that the view taken by learned appellate court is simply perverse and unsustainable on evidence on record and circumstances of the case. Thus in the instant case I find that the view taken by learned appellate court is simply perverse and unsustainable on evidence on record and circumstances of the case. He simply believed bald, interested, inconsistent and false statement of defendant about payment He over-looked the fact that defendant badly faltered in cross-examination and learned civil judge gave very good reasons to disbelieve him and accepted the plaintiff's case which was consistent with the documentary evidence and circumstances of the case as pointed out above. 18. No other point was argued before me in this appeal. 19. In the result the appeal is allowed. Impugned decree is set aside and plaintiff's claim for recovery of Rs. 6000/- together with costs of this Court throughout and future and pendente lite interest Rs. 6/-per cent per annum is decreed.