JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 5-7-1996 passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore, for a sum of Rs. 68,340/- with interest and costs. Further, the appellant/defendant was directed to pay current and future interest at 24% p.a. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant has come up with this appeal mainly on the ground that the Court below has come to a wrong conclusion in passing the impugned judgment and decree and has not framed the issue regarding running of chit fund by P.W. 2 who is the father of the respondent. Even though the appellant/defendant has taken a valid and tenable contention that the two endorsements in Ex. P. 1 made on various dates with regard to the payment of the balance of sale consideration amount which was received but her signature was taken on a pretext that some time may be extended to execute the sale deed. Hence, this appeal. 2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the appellant/defendant has entered into an agreement of sale on 3-11-1986 agreeing to sell a suit schedule property bearing Registration No. 21, 6th Main Road, Bangalore-26, for a sum of Rs. 34,000/- as on the date of agreement of sale that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards earnest money and the defendant had undertaken to clear all the taxes if any due and hand over the Encumbrance Certificate and vacant possession of the premises on or before 3-12-1986. The sale deed had to be executed on or before 1-4-1987. Therefore, as on 3-11-1986 the respondent/plaintiff has to pay balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 19,000/- and subsequently, on behalf of the appellant her parents paid a sum of Rs. 17,000/- on various dates and obtained the endorsement. So, at the request of the defendant only time was extended on 1-10-1987 and she has agreed to pay the liquidating damages of Rs. 32,000/-. Since the defendant failed to pay the liquidated damages, she filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 64,430/-. Since the defendant has not executed the sale deed or paid the total sum of liquidated damages of Rs. 64,000/- together with interest at 24% p.a., the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and thereafter she filed a suit for recovery for the said sum. 3. 64,430/-. Since the defendant has not executed the sale deed or paid the total sum of liquidated damages of Rs. 64,000/- together with interest at 24% p.a., the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and thereafter she filed a suit for recovery for the said sum. 3. After appearance the defendant filed a written statement. Admitting the agreements of sale dated 3-11-1986 to sell the property for Rs. 34,000/- but received only Rs. 11,000/- from the plaintiff and Rs. 4,000/- was adjusted towards chit amount by the plaintiff and that the appellant-defendant has denied about the subsequent payment made by the plaintiff amounting to Rs. 17,000/- by the plaintiff through her parents' on various dates. He has taken a serious contention that when the appellant-defendant approached for further sum, the respondent plaintiff failed to pay. Even then she was ready and willing to execute the sale deed. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the Civil Judge, City Civil Court, has framed in all five issues, which are follows.- (i) Whether the defendant proves that the consideration amount she received only Rs. 11,000/- and not Rs. 15,000/-? (ii) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff obtained signature on the agreement without the knowledge or contents are being revealed and not received Rs. 17,000/-? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages and total claim at Rs. 68,340/- as per para 12 of the plaint? (iv) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is not entitled for interest earnest money or earnest amount? (v) What decree or order?" 5. After considering, both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Civil Judge answered issues 1, 2 and 4 in the negative, issue 3 in the affirmative and issue 5 as per the final order. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for appellant and the respondent. 7. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent, at no point of time, has paid the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 19,000/- and so-called 3 endorsements on Ex. P. 1 obtained by the father of the respondent for extension of time to register the sale deed. Therefore, the endorsements on Ex. P. 1 i.e., Exs. P. 1(A) to P. 1(C) were inserted subsequently without her consent. 19,000/- and so-called 3 endorsements on Ex. P. 1 obtained by the father of the respondent for extension of time to register the sale deed. Therefore, the endorsements on Ex. P. 1 i.e., Exs. P. 1(A) to P. 1(C) were inserted subsequently without her consent. Therefore, the Civil Court was not right in decreeing the suit with interest at 24% p.a. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court has not considered the oral evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 to show that the father of the plaintiff is running a chit and the appellant being a member of the chit fund subscribed some amount and therefore a sum of Rs. 4,000/- out of the earnest money payable to her has been adjusted but she received only Rs. 11,000/- on 3-11-1986. Therefore, the appellant is liable to pay only Rs. 11,000/-. Since her signature was taken on page 3 and subsequently it was inserted (typed) to suit the convenience of the appellant to claim liquidated damages of Rs. 32,000/apart from the sale consideration. 8. Further it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Court below has not properly framed the issues without considering the contention taken in her written statement. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the case be remitted back to the Civil Court to frame appropriate issues and dispose of the suit in accordance with law. Finally, the Counsel for the appellant submitted that the interest awarded by the Trial Court at the rate of 24% per annum, even though there was no such condition, is illegal. The interest awarded by the Trial Court is on the higher side, at the most the Court is entitled to grant interest only at 6% per annum but not at this exorbitant rate. 9. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tejram v Patirambhau1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "Agreement to sell - Specific performance - A money lender alleged to have parted with Rs. 48,000/- as part consideration of agreement to sell immovable property - Balance consideration of Rs. 48,000/- as part consideration of agreement to sell immovable property - Balance consideration of Rs. 2,000/- neither paid by him nor possession of property taken by him - He kept quiet for 3 years and thereafter filed suit on last date of limitation - In circumstances of document purporting to be agreement for sale cannot be treated as sale in truth Looking to doubtful conduct of parties, no satisfactory conclusion reached as to what amount was actually due and what was actually paid - In circumstances, Court directed appellant to pay sum of Rs. 48,000/- to respondent without any interest". 10. The learned Counsel also relied on another decision in the case of Sitaram Lal v. Jameswar Das2, wherein the Orissa High Court held that: "Failure to appreciate the correct legal effect or consequence of basic statements of facts - Is an error which is liable to be interfered with in second appeal". 11. As against this the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant herein entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff-respondent-Sumithra Devi and that she is in no way connected with the alleged chit fund run by her father. As on the date of agreement of sale the respondent-plaintiff paid Rs. 15,000/- in cash subsequently on her behalf her parents paid the balance of sale consideration amount in three times, to that effect the appellant-defendant has made endorsements on Ex. P. 1. Therefore, the Court below has rightly decreed the suit and does not call for any interference. Further, he has contended that Ex. P. HA) discloses that the defendant-appellant has agreed to pay liquidated damaged in all Rs. 64,000/- with interest at 24% per annum. Since the defendant has not executed the sale deed she cannot evict her tenant from the suit schedule premises, therefore, she filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 68,4301- with interest by way of liquidated damages. It is further contended that the amount paid by her parents on her behalf while she was staying at Mysore does not mean that she has not paid the said amount and the signatures as endorsements on three occasions clearly indicate that the defendant has received the said amount in three instalments so also she has signed on three occasions at Ex. P. 1, which are marked as Exs. P. HA) to P. HC). P. 1, which are marked as Exs. P. HA) to P. HC). Further, it is submitted that the burden of proving issues 1, 2 and 4 lies on the defendant. Since the appellant-defendant failed to prove the said issues the Court below has rightly considered the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. Hence, the question of remanding or reversing or modifying the order of judgment and decree does not arise. 12. Having heard the arguments of both parties and considering the material placed on record the point that arises for my consideration and decision is whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is perverse, capricious and incorrect, if so, whether it calls for interference? 13. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant herein has executed the agreement of sale Ex. P. 1 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on 3-11-1986 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property to the respondent for a total sum of Rs. 34,000/-. As per the agreement a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid to the appellant as earnest money deposit and the respondent agreed to pay the remaining balance sale consideration to the appellant before Sub-Registrar and the appellant herein being a vendor undertook to pay all the taxes due in respect of the schedule property, undertook to furnish encumbrance certificate in respect of the entire premises within one year from the date of execution of Ex. P. 1. It was further agreed that the purchaser shall pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 19,000/- within 1-4-1987 failing which the vendor is entitled to forfeit the amount paid. Further, the vendor, namely the appellant herein, undertook to hand over vacant possession of the premises as on the date of execution of the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar or before 1-4-1987. But the evidence placed on record by the respondent-plaintiff on 3-11-1986 shows that he paid Rs. 15,000/- as advance. So also she paid the balance amount i.e., Rs. 17,000/- on three occasions before the expiry of the date of agreement. It is clear from the evidence of Exs. P. 1(A) to P. 1(C) that on behalf of the respondent a sum of Rs. 7,000/- on 19-1-1987, Rs. 8,000/- on 4-4-1987 and Rs. 2,000/- on 26-7-1987 was paid by her parents. This goes to show that the respondent had paid in all Rs. 32,000/- on various dates. It is clear from the evidence of Exs. P. 1(A) to P. 1(C) that on behalf of the respondent a sum of Rs. 7,000/- on 19-1-1987, Rs. 8,000/- on 4-4-1987 and Rs. 2,000/- on 26-7-1987 was paid by her parents. This goes to show that the respondent had paid in all Rs. 32,000/- on various dates. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the signatures of P.W. 3, who drafted Ex. P. 1, just below the alleged two endorsements goes to show that the endorsements subsequently got typed after taking her signature on the right side of page of Ex. P. 1 i.e., Exs. P.1(A) to P. 1(C). It is pertinent to note that Ex. P. 1(A) typed on a separate sheet dated 26-7-1987, which bears the signature of the appellant agreeing to pay interest at 24% in case she fails to pay Rs. 64,000/- on or before 1-10-1987. The evidence on record indicate that Ex. P. 1 was drafted and typed by the Advocate for the appellant-defendant, so also the endorsements Exs. P. 1(A) to P. 1(C). Since the appellant-defendant has not disputed her signature on Ex. P. 1 the burden lies on her to prove under what circumstances her signatures were taken on pages 2 and 3 of Exs. P. 1 and P. 1(A). 14. It is clear from the record that as on the date of execution of the agreement of sale the property agreed to sell in favour of the respondent was in occupation of some tenant. It is not her case that she has paid all the taxes or dues to the concerned authorities in respect of the suit schedule property, so also failed to give Encumbrance Certificate to the respondent-plaintiff. If the father of the respondent adjusted a sum of Rs. 4,000/- out of the earnest money Rs. 15,000/- and paid only Rs. 11,000/- then she ought to have issued legal notice informing the respondent about the actual amount received by her as earnest money on 3-11-1986. After issuance of legal notice Ex. P. 2-she issued a reply to P.W. 3, N. Vasudeva, previously who was her Advocate who initiated petition against her tenant. Therefore, Court below has rightly accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 about the execution of the agreement of sale Ex. After issuance of legal notice Ex. P. 2-she issued a reply to P.W. 3, N. Vasudeva, previously who was her Advocate who initiated petition against her tenant. Therefore, Court below has rightly accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 about the execution of the agreement of sale Ex. P. 1 and the amount received by her on that date and also on subsequent dates. Of course the appellant herself is examined as D.W. 1 and examined another witness as D.W. 2. From the evidence of these witness it is clear that the father of the respondent was running chit and P.W. 2 was knowing the same. The evidence of D.W. 2 discloses that since the defendant being the neighbour she introduced to the father of the plaintiff. At that time she has also deposited the money in the chit run by one Ponnuswamy. The evidence placed on record through D.Ws. 1 and 2 does not disclose that defendant is a member of the chit run by the father of the plaintiff. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge rightly not accepted the contention of the appellant-defendant and answered issues 1, 2 and 4 in the negative as she failed to discharge her burden about the contention taken in her evidence. When a party entered into an agreement of sale, and when the agreement of sale could not be executed within the time-limit even after receipt of major part of the sale consideration and the vendor fails to furnish the Encumbrance Certificate, within the stipulated period as agreed to by the parties, then the remedy available for the purchaser is to file a suit for recovery of the amount paid together with interest. Therefore, the issues framed by the learned Civil Judge in accordance with the pleadings does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court to remand the said case to again frame appropriate issues. 15. As far as the contention that the interest awarded by the Trial Court at 24% per annum on Rs. 64,430/- is concerned, there is no such condition in the agreement to sale (Ex. P. 1). Ex. P. 1(A) shows that the scribe of Ex. P. 1 has not signed the same and the date has been altered. Page 4 of the Ex. 64,430/- is concerned, there is no such condition in the agreement to sale (Ex. P. 1). Ex. P. 1(A) shows that the scribe of Ex. P. 1 has not signed the same and the date has been altered. Page 4 of the Ex. P. 1 discloses that the respondent-plaintiff signed on 1-8-1987 below the signature of the appellant and the father of the respondent. But the signature of the scribe at page 4 is said to have been signed on 20-6-1987 at 10.20 a.m. P.W. 2, father of the respondent, signed at page 3 of Ex. P. 1. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent is entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 32,000/- paid to the defendant with liquidated damages, apart from that she is entitled to interest at 6% per annum as contemplated under Section 34 of the CPC. The Trial Court, without scrutinising Ex. P. 1(A), has awarded interest at 24% per annum and the same is liable to be set aside. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 64,430/- together with costs and interest at 6% per annum.