Judgment :- Srinivasn, J. Defendants are the appellants. First defendants is a partnership firm. Defendants 2 to 6 are pan Hers. Defendants 3 to 6 are sisters of the second defendant. 7th defendant is not a partner of the first defendant-firm, but a brother of the second defendant. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs.54,6360. It is not in dispute between the parties that they were having dealings in the mat-ter of purchase of jaggery and jaggery powder. The first defendant-firm was purchasing jaggery and jaggery powder from the plaintiff on credit and was making payments. On 27. 1978 the parties looked into the accounts and on a complaint made by the second defendant that since some of the goods supplied by the plaintiff were not of good quality, they had to incur loss, the plaintiff, gave a remission of Rs.50,000. On that date, the amount due by the first defendant was Rs.52,2391. According to the plaintiff, second defendant wanted a loan of Rs.38,000 on 12. 1978 and sent his brother 7th defendant to the plaintiff’s shop. The plaintiff withdrew the money from his Bank account and paid the same to the 7th defendant and got his signature in the chitta book. The amount has not been repaid and a notice was issued under Ex. A-l dated 3. 1981 by the plaintiff calling upon the defendants to pay the entire amount. The defendants sent a reply denying their liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Thereafter the suit was filed on 30.11.1981. 2. The defendants raised a plea that the claim with regard to the sum of Rs.2,231.91, which was the amount due on 27. 1978 after remission of Rs.50,000 was barred by limitation. The other plea raised by the defendants was that there was no borrowal of Rs.38,000 and the plaintiffs claim is a false one. 3. The trial court considered the evidence on both sides and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree as prayed for and accordingly, passed a decree. The aggrieved defendants have preferred this appeal. Pending the appeal, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 4. 3. The trial court considered the evidence on both sides and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree as prayed for and accordingly, passed a decree. The aggrieved defendants have preferred this appeal. Pending the appeal, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 4. The first and foremost contention put forward by learned counsel for the appellants is that in the notice issued prior to the suit by the plaintiff under Ex.A-1, there was no mention about the borrowing of Rs.38,000 on 12. 1978. But the notice was issued as if the entire amount of Rs.40,231.91 mentioned therein was due on dealings. The relevant paragraph in the notice reads as follows: “By way of those dealing had by you with my client in jaggery and jaggery powder on credit there still remains a balance of Rs.40,231.91 due by you to my client as per your ledger page in my client’s accounts kept and maintained in the usual course of business.” But for the first time in the plaint, it is specifically mentioned that a sum of Rs.2,231.91 was already due and a sum of Rs.38,000 was borrowed on 12. 1978. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that there is no explanation on the part of the plaintiff as to why he failed to mention the borrowing of Rs.38,000 in Ex.A-1. If really there was such a borrowal, it would have been mentioned in the notice. The second aspect of the matter on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiff has not taken even a receipt or any other documents from any of the defendants. According to him, merely obtaining a signature in the chitta book will not be sufficient and even that signature is disputed. It is the case of the defendants that the signature in the chitta book is a fabricated one and it is not genuine. The 7th defendant who has also filed a written statement entered into the witness box to give evidence as D.W.I. He has stated that it is not his signature. The third circumstance is that there was no transaction between the parties after 27. 1978 and it was wholly unlikely that the defendants would have approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.38,000. The third circumstance is that there was no transaction between the parties after 27. 1978 and it was wholly unlikely that the defendants would have approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.38,000. Fourthly, it is contended that the plaintiff himself was indebted heavily to others including the members of the defendants’ family and the defendants would not have approached him for loan. Fifthly, it is contended that there is discrepancy between the entries in the plaintiffs account books, namely Exs.A-l0 and A-13 with regard to the lending of Rs.38,000. The sixth circumstance is that the plaintiff did not make any demand whatever for nearly three years after the alleged borrowing. For the first time, the demand was made only under Ex.A-1 notice. Seventhly, it is contended that if the 7th defendant had approached the plaintiff for money, the plaintiff would have issued a cheque in his favour and would not have issued a cheque for himself and withdrawn money from the Bank and paid in cash to the 7th defendant. Finally, it is contended that the pass book of the plaintiff Ex. A-19 shows that amounts were withdrawn by him immediately after every deposit and there was not sufficient balance in the account at any time. .5. At the first blush the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants appear to be formidable. However, there are several circumstances which are made out from the evidence which show that the case of plaintiff is true. In the first place, we have compared the signatures of the 7th defendant found in Ex.A-20with the admitted signature of the 7th defendant which arc found in several documents filed in this case, .Exs.A-14 to A-16and Exs.A-21 to A-27 besides Exs.A-31 to A-42 contain the admitted signatures of the 7th defendant. Learned counsel for the appellants wanted us to compare the signatures in Exs.A-31 and A-34 with that found in Ex.A-20. No doubt there are some differences in the signatures. But, they do not make out that the signature found in Ex.A-20 is not genuine one. Even the admitted signatures of the 7th defendant are different. Each signature varies in some respect or other with the other admitted signature. Even the signatures in Exs.A-31 and A-34 are different in some aspects. No doubt there are some differences in the signatures. But, they do not make out that the signature found in Ex.A-20 is not genuine one. Even the admitted signatures of the 7th defendant are different. Each signature varies in some respect or other with the other admitted signature. Even the signatures in Exs.A-31 and A-34 are different in some aspects. Hence, merely from the variations which are very immaterial we cannot come to the conclusion that the signature found in Ex.A-20 is forged and not genuine. To our mind, the free flow of hand with which the signature in Ex.A-20 has been made shows that it is a genuine one. Moreover, the defendants have not genuine one. Moreover, the defendants have not examined any expert to prove that the signature is not genuine. The other circumstances of the case will also point out that the signature is genuine. 6. It is admitted by the second defendant as D. W.2 that the defendants used to borrow money also from the plaintiff when they were having dealings in jaggery and jaggery powder. It is clearly admitted that such borrowings were being made on signatures made in the plaintiffs accounts. Second defendant in his evidence has said, It is also admitted by him that similar borrowings were made not only on the signature of the 7th defendant or any other member of the family, but also on the signature of their accountant working in the first defendant-firm by name Gopal and an office boy by name Loganathan. It is stated by D.W.2 that Loganathan used to get tea for the persons who worked in the firm and he had been working as an errand boy. When the parties have so much of confidence between themselves so as to land and borrow money on signatures of office boys and accountants, it is quite probable that a sum of Rs.38,000 was paid by the plaintiff on the signature made by the 7th defendant, who is none other than the brother of the second defendant. .7. The entries in the account books of the plaintiff appear to have been made in the regular course of business. There could be no doubt whatever that the account books are maintained regularly. Ex.A-6 is the ledger of the plaintiff for the year 1978-79. Page 55 of Ex-A-6 contains an entry dated 27. .7. The entries in the account books of the plaintiff appear to have been made in the regular course of business. There could be no doubt whatever that the account books are maintained regularly. Ex.A-6 is the ledger of the plaintiff for the year 1978-79. Page 55 of Ex-A-6 contains an entry dated 27. 1978 showing the remission of Rs.50,000 from out of the total amount of Rs.52,2391. The next entry is dated 12. 1978 which shows that a sum of Rs.38,000 was lent to the first defendant-firm. The corre-sponding entries in the ledger book Ex.A-10 are found at pages 81 and 152 respectively. The way in which the entries are made shows that they have been made regularly in the course of business on the respective dales and they are not fabricated, or made on a subsequent date. Ex.A-13 is the chitta book. On 12. 178 an entry is made that sum of Rs.38,000 is given to the first defendant-firm in cash through the 7th defendant. 7th defendant has signed below the said entry. 7th defendant as D.W.1 has admitted that the plaintiff is maintaining a chitta book. But, when he was asked as to how he knew that the plaintiff was maintaining a chitta book, he replied that the could not give reasons. Obviously, he is prevaricating. A suggestion is made to him that the is aware that a chitta book is being maintained by the plaintiff because he had signed the same. He has chosen to deny the same. A reading of the evidence of D.W.I shows that he is not speaking the truth. In one place he has staled that he has nothing to do with the partnership business of the first defendant. But later he has stated that he used to look after the business and sign the bills. Hence, we cannot accept the evidence of D.W.1 that the did not sign in Ex.A-13. 8. We also find that there was absolutely no motive for the plaintiff to make a false claim against the defendants. Nothing has been suggested in the cross examination of the plaintiff that he had a particular reason for making a false claim against the defendants or defrauding them. 8. We also find that there was absolutely no motive for the plaintiff to make a false claim against the defendants. Nothing has been suggested in the cross examination of the plaintiff that he had a particular reason for making a false claim against the defendants or defrauding them. In the reply notice, Ex.A-2 and in the written statement, it is stated by defendant that because the plaintiff was called upon to pay the amount due to the members of the family of the defendants, as a measure of retaliation he had issued the notice Ex.A-1 followed by the suit. In our opinion this contention has no merit. It is not now in dispute that all the debts due to the members of the family of the defendants by the plaintiff have been discharged. The plaintiff never sought to take shelter under the present claim made by him and failed to discharge the other debts. .9. One of the contentions of the defendants is that the plaintiff was heavily indebted and he had no means to lend money. There is no substance in this contention. Ex.A-19, the bank pass book of the plaintiff shows that he had money on the relevant date. He had withdrawn the sum of Rs.38,000 from his account on that date through his clerk Vasudevan and he appeared to have paid the same to the 7th defendant. It shows that he had sufficient money. Apart from that, the balance sheet produced by the plaintiff shows that she has been doing business and his turnover has been for several lakhs. .During the relevant period, namely, on 1st April, 1978, the opening stock was Rs.3,88,173.50 and the total sales of jaggery went upto Rs. 12,34,0914. It further shows that he had other outstandings. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the fact that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.85,572.30 by way of interest to his creditors during the relevant period. That only shows that the plaintiff was honest in repaying the debts due by him. One of the items of payment is a sum of Rs.3,285 for interest due to Vallavaraj & Co., a sister concern of the first defendant-firm. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was of such a character that he would make a fraudulent claim over others. 10. One of the items of payment is a sum of Rs.3,285 for interest due to Vallavaraj & Co., a sister concern of the first defendant-firm. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff was of such a character that he would make a fraudulent claim over others. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that there was a settlement of account on 27. 1978and thereafter there was no transaction between the parties. There is a fallacy in this contention. The entries in the plaintiff’s accounts as well as in the defendants accounts do not show any settlement of account between the parties. The entries only show that a sum of Rs.50,000 was remitted and entered as a receipt by the plaintiff from the defendants. The relevant entry in E.x.B-3 is also in the same lines as the entries in the plaintiffs accounts and there is no substance in the contention of the defendants that there was a settlement of accounts. The account continued to be a running account and the plaintiff had entered in the same account the sum of Rs.38,000 which he had paid to the 7th defendant on 12. 1978. .11. There is also no merit in the contention that the cheque could have been issued in favour of the 7th defendant himself and not in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has given an explanation that the 7th defendant wanted the money in cash, and so, he sent his clerk to the Bank to withdraw the amount and paid the same to the 7th defendant. This explanation is acceptable, in the circumstances of the case. The mere fact that the plaintiff did not make a demand for a period of nearly three years would not disprove the truth of the claim made by the plaintiff. When all the other circumstances point out that the amount was given by the plaintiff to the 7th defendant and that the 7th defendant had signed Ex.A-20 china book of the plaintiff, we cannot accept the contention of the defendants that the plaint iff should have made a demand much earlier and should not have waited for about three years. It is also seen from the evidence that the plaintiff had borrowed from other members of the family of the defendants and that he had discharged those debts. It is also seen from the evidence that the plaintiff had borrowed from other members of the family of the defendants and that he had discharged those debts. Probably he had waited till the discharge of those debts and then made a claim for the amount due to him from the defendants. 12. There is also no substance in the contention that the plaintiff had withdrawn all the amounts deposited in his bank account immediately on such deposit and therefore, he would not have lent money to the defendants. The bank account of the plaintiff shows that he had money. He was a business man and he was with drawing a mounts whenever there was need. As it was a large scale business, as and when deposits were made, he has with drawing the same. The totality of the evidence proves beyond doubt that the claim made by the plaintiff is genuine and that the defendants are liable to pay the amount due to the plaintiff. 13. The contention that the claim with regard to the sum of Rs.2,231.91 is barred by limitation is unacceptable. As pointed out earlier, the account is a running account and it is a single account. The plaintiff and the defendants have been having dealings and in that account, a sum of Rs.50,000 was debited as receipt by the plaintiff from the defendants from out of the sum of Rs.52,231.91 due from the defendants. The balance of Rs.2231.91 was kept as due from the defendants and a sum of Rs.38,000 was added on 12. 1978. Hence no part of the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. We accept the findings given by the trial court. 14. It is pointed out in Sarju Prasad v. Jwaleshwari, A.I.R. 1951 S.C.I 20 and Radha Prasad Singh v. Gajadhar Singh, A.I.R. 1900 S.C. 115, that where the question for consideration for the appellate Court is undoubtedly one of fact the decision of which depends upon the appreciation of the oral adduced in the case, the appellate court has got to be in mind that it has not the advantage which the trial Judge had in having the witnesses before him and of observing the manner in which they deposed in court. In this case, there are some circumstances on which reliance can be placed by the appellants and there are several other circumstances on which reliance can be placed by the respondents. However, the trial court has taken a particular view and it had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and disbelieved one set. In this particular case, we find that the plaintiffs case is more probable and therefore, we take the view that the trial Court’s judgments should be accepted. .15. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the decree for interest from 12. 1978 is unsustainable. According to him, there was no agreement for payment of interest and the plaintiff can if at all claim of interest only from the date of notice Ex.A-1. In the plaint in paragraph 9, the plaintiff has stated that as per the agreement, trade usage and custom, the plaintiff, is entitled to get interest at 12% per annum-simple interest and the first defendant also agreed to pay the same. It is not denied by the defendants. In the circumstances, we reject the contention of the appellants that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest from 12. 1978. 16. In the result the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.