H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is defendant's appeal from the judgment and decree dated 15-3-1997 delivered by Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the plaintiffs claim for a sum of Rs. 1,05,590/- together with the costs and current interest at the rate of 18% per annum in O. S. No. 4739 of 1992. The plaintiffs case is that under an agreement for sale, the plaintiff had agreed to sell and the defendant had agreed to purchase the property belonging to the plaintiff, as mentioned in the plaint. That vide agreement dated 12-11-1987, entered between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant had agreed to purchase the properties mentioned in the plaint for a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/ -. That the defendant had paid advance sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the date of agreement and it was agreed the sale transaction will be completed within six months from the date of agreement after payment of balance sum of sale consideration. That the plaintiff acknowledged the receipt of the said amount. That as per plaint case, defendant on 16-11-1987 and on 17-2-1988 respectively paid sums of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000 and by two cheques dated 6-4-1988 for Rs. 12,000/- and dated 15-4-1988 for Rs. 48,000/-, the balance sum of Rs. 60,000/- was being paid. But, when the cheques were tendered to the bank for encashment, they were dishonoured. The plaintiffs case is that the plaintiff gave a notice calling upon the defendant to pay all the unpaid sale consideration as the cheques issued by the respondent had been dishonoured. This notice was given on 7-1-1992. These two cheques were dishonoured on 30-4-1988. The plaintiff filed the suit on 24-7-1992. ( 2 ) THE defendant filed the written statement taking various pleas and the plea that the defendant is not liable to pay any interest or interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The defendant took the plea that the plaintiff has got no cause of action as the defendant has paid entire amount of Rs. 60,000/- in cash. In the written statement a plea of limitation has also been raised. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues. 1. WHETHER the plaintiff proves that the defendant had issued a post-dated cheque for Rs. 12,000/-, dated 6-4-1988. 2. 60,000/- in cash. In the written statement a plea of limitation has also been raised. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues. 1. WHETHER the plaintiff proves that the defendant had issued a post-dated cheque for Rs. 12,000/-, dated 6-4-1988. 2. WHETHER the defendant is liable to pay interest at 18% per annum to the plaintiff?3. WHETHER the defendant proves that he paid the plaintiff Rs. 48,000/- in cash and the plaintiff did not return the dishonoured cheque?4. WHETHER the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs. 1,05,590/-?5. WHAT decree? ( 4 ) THE Trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence, decreed the suit taking the view that if the theory set up by the defendant that after the cheques were bounced or dishonoured, he paid the money in cash, then, why he did not take the receipt for the amount paid particularly when according to the defendant the plaintiff was not giving back those cheques. The Court below did not find any reason for the defendant not taking the receipts for the said sum. The Court, therefore, rejected the theories set up by the defendant/appellant and as such, decreed the suit. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, defendant has come up before this Court by appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 6 ) I have heard Smt. Gowhar Unnisa holding brief for Sri M. Erappa Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Kalyan Basavaraj for Sri Muniyappa, learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had paid in cash and the Trial Court erred and acted illegally in not relying on the evidence of the plaintiff. She further submitted that the tinding to the effect that the defendant had failed to prove the payment of balance sum in form of cash is erroneous. Smt. Gowhar Unnisa further submitted that the plaintiffs suit had been barred by time. ( 8 ) THESE contentions of the appellant's Counsel have hotly been contested by Sri Kalyan Basavaraj, learned Counsel for the respondent. He contended that there is no reason why the receipt was not taken. Smt. Gowhar Unnisa further submitted that the plaintiffs suit had been barred by time. ( 8 ) THESE contentions of the appellant's Counsel have hotly been contested by Sri Kalyan Basavaraj, learned Counsel for the respondent. He contended that there is no reason why the receipt was not taken. Really no amount was paid and therefore, there was no question of giving any receipt. With respect to the second contention, the learned Counsel contended that the plea has not been pressed in issue in the Trial Court and therefore it should not be allowed to be raised. Further, he contendedt hat when the cheques had been bounced, the plaintiff awaited and gave a notice that the cheques had been dishonoured to the defendant/appellant. It is Ex. P-5 on the record at page 23 of the paperbook. The learned Counsel further submitted by that notice, the defendant/appellant was informed that the cheques had been dishonoured on the endorsement of the Bank "referring to Drawer" were given and asked the defendant/appellant to pay amount of Rs. 60,000/- which was balance towards the sale consideration as well as to pay the interest at the rate of 24%. But the notice was not complied with and no money was paid. Therefore, really right to sue did accrue on 17-1-1992. As such, suit is within three years from 17-1-1992. When the intimation was given that cheque had been dishonoured and the defendant was required to pay the amount. ( 9 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned Counsels for the parties. As regards payment of balance of Rs. 60,000/- in cash, in my opinion, the Trial Court has rightly held that the defendant's evidence was not reliable in absence of any documentary evidence and why after paying the amount, the defendant did not ask the plaintiff to give a receipt and if the receipt was not given, why he did not take any action? These reasonings appear to be justified when other payments were made by cheques and when two cheques were dishonoured, why the defendant, when paying the money, had not asked the plaintiff/respondent to give the receipt? Therefore, in my opinion, the Trial Court's finding to the effect that the defendant failed to prove the payment of Rs. 60,000/- in respect of cheques which had been dishonoured. Therefore, in my opinion, the Trial Court's finding to the effect that the defendant failed to prove the payment of Rs. 60,000/- in respect of cheques which had been dishonoured. ( 10 ) AS regards limitation, no doubt, plea of limitation was raised in the written statement and in the grounds of appeal. But, no issue was pressed in the Trial Court nor there appears to be any discussions or arguments raised on that point. In such circumstances, this plea cannot and is not to be entertained at this stage in view of the law laid down in the case of Mudanna Virayya v Mudanna Adenna and Others. Apart from that, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the suit is within time and twelve years limitation is there. I am unable to agree with this contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Limitation is three years. But the suit had been filed on the ground that cheques had been dishonoured before filing of the suit. No doubt, plaintiff had to inform the defendant about the cheques being dishonoured and had to make demand of sums under cheques dishonoured; otherwise, he could not file the suit on the basis of the cheques being dishonoured without a notice to defendant. Notices having been given in January 1992, as per Ex. P-5, and the defendant not having paid the amount in pursuance of that, the present suit can be said to be within three years from the date of notice dated 17-1-1992 and its noncompliance, when right to sue on the basis of cheques being dishonoured accrued vide Article 113, Schedule to Limitation Act did arise. Thus considered, the suit was well-within the period of limitation. ( 11 ) FROM the perusal of the judgment, I find that the interest which has been awarded at the rate of 18% per annum is high and further the interest for the period which has accrued on account of dereliction on the part of the plaintiff should not have been allowed i. e. , for the period from 30-4-1988 to 17-1-1992. Therefore, the decree has to be modified to this extent. The plaintiffs suit will stand decreed for the sum of Rs. 60,000/- for which cheques were issued and dishonoured. Therefore, the decree has to be modified to this extent. The plaintiffs suit will stand decreed for the sum of Rs. 60,000/- for which cheques were issued and dishonoured. As regards interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the period from 30-4-1988 to 17-1-1992, in my opinion, the plaintiff is not entitled to decree for that amount. It means, the plaintiff has not been entitled to the amount which has been claimed as interest. The Trial Court's decree, as such, is modified decreeing the plaintiffs suit for a sum of Rs. 65,590/- with interest pendente lite and future, not at the rate of 18%, but at the rate of 6% per annum, as per Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 12 ) THE appeal is thus allowed in part. The decree of the Trial Court is modified to this effect that the plaintiffs suit shall stand decreed only for a sum of Rs. 65,590/- with interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 6% per annum only. ( 13 ) THE parties will be entitled to proportionate costs of success and failure. --- *** --- .