( 1 ) INTRODUCTION: The defendants in O. S. No. 257/93 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-III member, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, city Civil Court, Hyderabad (old O. S. No. 414/87) aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 22-9-1994, had preferred the present appeal. M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. , punjagutta, Hyderabad, the respondent in this appeal, is the plaintiff in the said suit. This suit O. S. No. 257/93 as tried along with o. S. No. 8/94 (old O. S. No. 4321/85) and the said suit was filed by the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 257/93 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from seizing or confiscating or taking away lorries bearing nos. ABT-644 and ABT-645 from his custody. Common evidence was recorded in both the suits. P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 were examined on behalf of M/s. Nagarjuna finance Ltd. , and Exs. A. 1 to A. 25 were marked. The 1st defendant in O. S. No. 257/ 93 was examined as D. W. 1 and his father was examined as D. W. 2, and Exs. B. l to b. 16 were marked. Though in O. S. No. 257/ 93 M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. , prayed for delivery of possession of lorries bearing no. ABT-644 and ABT-645 in running condition to plaintiff and in alternative for the value of two vehicles bearing No. ABT- 644 and ABT-645 and for a arrears of hire amount and also damages and future damages and for costs of the suit, the Trial court on appreciation of evidence, ultimately, answered Issue No. 4 in O. S. No. 257/93 as hereunder:"as already stated the 1st defendant, who is the hirer of the suit vehicles and the 2nd defendant, who is guarantor for 1st defendant are liable to pay a sum of rs. 1,41. 700/- for each vehicle being the amount due towards unpaid instalments covered by Hire Purchase Agreements exs. A-7 and A-8 relating to those two vehicles. The defendants are not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 23,600/- being the damages and also a sum of Rs. 5,900/- per month for future damages for using the vehicles every month as claimed by the plaintiff. Here, the plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs. 5,95,810/- for purchase of 4 vehicles. Further, the plaintiff akeady received a sum of Rs. 23,600/- being the damages and also a sum of Rs. 5,900/- per month for future damages for using the vehicles every month as claimed by the plaintiff. Here, the plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs. 5,95,810/- for purchase of 4 vehicles. Further, the plaintiff akeady received a sum of Rs. 3,53,600/- towards the payment of 13 instalments and also a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- for sale of 2 vehicles, totally the plaintiff realised a sum of rs. 6,23,000/ -. Further, the defendants have to pay a total sum of Rs. 9,20,400/ -. Under these circumstances, it is just and reasonable to direct the defendants to pay interest at 14% for the amount of Rs. 2,83,400/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation and afterwards with interest at 6% per annum to the date of realization. Hence, the suit is decreed for Rs. 2,83,400/- with interest at 14% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and with the interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. "aggrieved by the same, the defendants in o. S. No. 257/93 had preferred the present appeal. ( 2 ) SUBMISSIONS made by Sri M. Balchand, the Counsel representing the appellants-defendants: sri Balchand, the learned Counsel representing the appellants-defendants made elaborate submissions on the aspect of the ingredients to be satisfied in Hire purchase Agreement and also would maintain that this is only a loan transaction. The learned Counsel also explained mortgage, pledge, hypothecation and would contend that at the best, this is only a loan transaction for consolidated amount and the Counsel would maintain that mere nomenclature used in relation to a document cannot be a guiding factor to decide the true nature of the transaction and the real nature of the transaction may have to be looked into and for this purpose, the Court may have to appreciate all the facts and circumstances relating to a particular transaction to decide whether a particular transaction is a hire Purchase Agreement or loan transaction. The Counsel also would point out that this is a matter concerned with purchase of some vehicles * and several instalments had been paid even according to the respondent-plaintiff, and hence, unless proper accounting is taken, Court cannot arrive at the correct conclusion. The Counsel also would point out that this is a matter concerned with purchase of some vehicles * and several instalments had been paid even according to the respondent-plaintiff, and hence, unless proper accounting is taken, Court cannot arrive at the correct conclusion. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the very fact that the value of the vehicles also had been claimed, which no doubt had been disallowed by the Trial Court would show that it is not a Hire Purchase Agreement, but a loan transaction. A blank document was obtained and Account Books were not produced and accounting was not done and the amounts which should have been given credit had not been given credit to at all. The learned Counsel also contended on the aspect of interest. The counsel also would maintain that the claim of overdue interest or calculation of interest, at flat rate on the entire amount for the period of 35 months is excessive and penal in nature. The learned Counsel also would contend that in view of the facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by the Trial Court cannot be sustained. ( 3 ) SUBMISSIONS made by Sri purushotham Reddy representing Sri G. Anandam, Counsel for respondent- plaintiff. The learned Courts representing the respondent-plaintiff had taken this Court through the documentary evidence available on record and also the evidence of p. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and would contend that the Trial Court had taken the oral and documentary evidence available on record into consideration, appreciated the same and ultimately, arrived at the correct conclusion. The learned Counsel also explained the reasons which had been recorded by the Trial Court for not giving deductions or adjustments of the amounts, as claimed by the appellants-defendants. The Counsel also would maintain that the suit filed for perpetual injunction by the 1st defendant was dismissed, but, however, without costs. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Trial Court and had pointed out that the Trial Court had negatived the relief relating to the claim of damages and no doubt, the same had attained finality. But, as far as the relief, which had been granted by the Trial Court, it is just and reasonable and the same need not be disturbed. But, as far as the relief, which had been granted by the Trial Court, it is just and reasonable and the same need not be disturbed. The learned Counsel also further would maintain that the documentary evidence would clearly go to show that this is only a Hire Purchase agreement and even otherwise, after due calculation of the amounts and giving credit to the instalments, which had been paid, the amount had been arrived at and only the suit was decreejd partly, granting alternative relief and hence the same need not be disturbed. ( 4 ) HEARD the Counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record. ( 5 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants, as shown in o. S. No. 257/93. ( 6 ) PLEADINGS of the parties: the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs referred to supra pleading, as hereunder:"the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff for hire purchase finance for letting of hire four lorries and the 1st defendant entered into 4 Hire Purchase Agreements dated 29-11-1983 for hiring 4 lorries ABT 644, ABT 645, ABT 646 and ABT 647 on the terms and conditions stipulated in the said Hire Purchase Agreements. The 2nd defendant executed the above agreements as guarantor agreeing to be jointly and severally liable for payment of hire amount commencing from 29-1-1984 to 29-11-1986 as stipulated in B-Schedule of Hire Purchase Agreements. Thereafter, the plaintiff paid the cost of the four vehicles to the dealer M/s. Automotive manufacturers, Secunderabad on 30-11-1983 and the vehicles were delivered to the 1st defendant. The vehicles have been registered in the name of the first defendant with the Hire Purchase Endorsement in favour of the plaintiff as provided under section 31-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The xerox copies of Hire Purchase agreements and RC Certificates are filed herewith. The defendants defaulted in payment of hire amounts on due dates and the plaintiff by letters dated 25-3-1984, 20-4-1984, 24-9-1984, 19-10-1984 and 22-11-1984 demanded the 1st defendant to pay all overdue hire amounts but the 1st defendant failed to pay the overdue hire amounts. The xerox copies of Hire Purchase agreements and RC Certificates are filed herewith. The defendants defaulted in payment of hire amounts on due dates and the plaintiff by letters dated 25-3-1984, 20-4-1984, 24-9-1984, 19-10-1984 and 22-11-1984 demanded the 1st defendant to pay all overdue hire amounts but the 1st defendant failed to pay the overdue hire amounts. The plaintiff therefore issued registered notices dated 2-12-1985 to the defendants demanding payment of overdue hire amounts in respect of vehicles ABT 644 and 645 and additional finance charges and all costs, charges and expenses in repossession and repair of the vehicles and all costs occasioned by their default in performing and observing the terms and covenants of the Hire Purchase Agreements but the defendants failed to do so. Xerox copies of letters and registered notices are filed herewith. The plaintiff submits that the suit is confined to the balance amount due pertaining to the vehicles ABT 644 and 645 and reserves its right to file a separate suit for the balance due in respect of vehicles ABT 646 and 647 and prays this hon ble Court for sanction under Order 2 rule 2 CPC. The defendants were very irregular in payment of hire amounts under the Hire purchase Agreements and defaulted to pay the hire amounts on and from 28-2-1985 in respect of vehicles ABT 644 and 645. The plaintiff submits that under Clause 20 of the Hire Purchase Agreement the defendants are liable to pay overdue charges for the actual days of delay for payment of each hire amount The plaintiff submits that the 1st defendant even after default in payment of hire amounts and having failed to exercise option to purchase the vehicles and without delivering the vehicles to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant is continuing to ply the vehicles ABT 644 and 645 and under Clause 23 of the hire Purchase Agreement the plaintiff is entitled to damages for use of the vehicles at the rate of Rs. 5900-00 (Rs. five thousand nine hundred only) per month per vehicle from 27-12-1986 till the date of delivery of the vehicles to the plaintiff and till the amount due is paid in full. A sum of Rs. 7,30,962-00 is due and payable by the defendants as on 27-1-1987 as per details shown below: abt 644 For delivery of possession of the vehicles Rs. 1,59,333-00 arrears of hire amount Rs. A sum of Rs. 7,30,962-00 is due and payable by the defendants as on 27-1-1987 as per details shown below: abt 644 For delivery of possession of the vehicles Rs. 1,59,333-00 arrears of hire amount Rs. 1,94,348-00 damages due on 27-12-1986 and 27-1-1987 at Rs. 5,900/- per month Rs11,800-00 rs. 3,65,481-00 ABT 645 For delivery of possession of the vehicle rs. 1,59,333-00 Arrears of hire amount Rs. 1,94,348-00 damages due on 27-12-1986 and 27-1-1987 at Rs. 5,900/- per month rs. 11,800-00 Rs. 3,65,481-00 Total amount due Rs. 7,30,962-00 defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying all the allegations. The Hire purchase Agreement was denied. The agreements in relation to the guarantor and jointed several liability for payment of hire amount also had been denied. It was admitted that the vehicles were registered in the name of the 1st defendant with the Transport Authorities. It was also further pleaded that the defendants suitably replied to the letters sent by the plaintiff dated 25-3-1984, 20-4-1984, 24-9-1984, 19-10-1984 and 22-11-1984. However, the issuance of the registered notice dated 2-12-1985 was not disputed. The defendants also pleaded the bar under order II Rule 2 of C. P. C. The plea that the defendants were irregular in payment of hire amount under the Hire Purchase agreements had been denied. The very existence of Hire Purchase Agreement had been denied apart from the default committed in making payments. It was also pleaded that the defendants are the owner of vehicles bearing Noabt 644 and ABT 645, entitled to ply the vehicles and the other allegations were denied. It was pleaded that the Hire Purchase agreements were never acted upon, much less, intended to be acted upon. The allegations in Para 7 of the plaint also had been denied. Likewise, the allegations in para 9 had been denied. It was further pleaded that the 1st defendant was in short of finance and he approached the plaintiff for financial facility and the plaintiff agreed for the same. While agreeing the plaintiff stated that nominally a Hire purchase Agreement has to be executed as collateral security and he assured that the said Hire Purchase Agreement would be nominal and would not be acted upon at any cost. With this clear understanding the defendants signed some of the blank documents though they were styled as Hire purchase Agreement but factually and practically, it was only a loan document. With this clear understanding the defendants signed some of the blank documents though they were styled as Hire purchase Agreement but factually and practically, it was only a loan document. The plaintiff obtained signatures of the defendants on blank printed documents because they were never intended to be acted upon. Believing the word of the plaintiff, the defendants signed the documents treating them as loan documents. Subsequently, the plaintiffs have manipulated the documents to suit their version of the case. To support the loan and as security the blank Hire Purchase agreements were signed but the intention of the parties was not to act upon it. The defendant No. 1 has paid the entire amount as mentioned in Annexure-B appended hereto amounting to Rs. 4,87,312/- (Rs. four lakhs eighty seven thousand three hundred and twelve only ). That apart the plaintiff has sold ABT 646 and ABT 647 illegally so that amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four lakhs only) should be adjusted against the loan outstanding. All these details including the payments made by the plaintiff are shown in the Aneexure-1 which clearly establishes that the defendant has paid the entire amount and at present the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs. 1,33,736-50 (Rs. One lakh thirty three thousand seven hundred aftd thirty six, and paise fifty only), to the defendants. So there does not arise any question of any further payment. The fact of full payment and other things were akeady informed to the plaintiff. That apart at the time of purchase of the lorries the defendants have paid Rs. 41,332/- (Rs. Forty one thousand three hundred and thirty two only) on 30-11-1983 to m/s. Automotive Manufacturers towards the purchase of the lorries. The xerox copy of the receipt is filed herewith. The original will be submitted later on. Even the plaintiff in their letter dated 29-8-1984 have admitted that an amount of Rs. 92,380/- (Rs. Ninety two thousand, three hundred and eighty only) is payable to the defendant-2. For every payment, the defendant-1 made is supported by voucher. The defendant-1 has sent a detailed letter to the plaintiff on 7-12-1985 on 25-11-1985. The office copy of the letters are filed herewith. It is relevant to mention here that the defendant-1 after seeing the teasing attitude of the plaintiff has akeady filed on suit against the plaintiff being OS no. 4321/85 on the file of the III Asst. The defendant-1 has sent a detailed letter to the plaintiff on 7-12-1985 on 25-11-1985. The office copy of the letters are filed herewith. It is relevant to mention here that the defendant-1 after seeing the teasing attitude of the plaintiff has akeady filed on suit against the plaintiff being OS no. 4321/85 on the file of the III Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which is still pending for declaring that the agreements are only loan transaction and not the Hire Purchase Agreement. The allegations of plaint in O. S. No. 4321/85 may be read as a part of this written statement. The unreasonableness of the plaintiffs claim is so evident that in spite of several reminders by the defendants, the former is deliberately failed to render the full accounts. The said suit has been filed earlier in point of time so the present suit is not maintainable and it is to be stayed till the decision of the case pending before III Asst. Judge, City Court, hyderabad. In alternative and without prejudice to factual pleas set out the defendants submit that the plaintiffs have violated the terms of the so-called nominal agreement of hire purchase so they cannot claim any relief or equity in this suit. That apart, the interest charged is exorbitant and highly atrocious. The plaintiff cannot claim such high rate of interest. It is relevant to mention here that the defendant-1 is an unemployed graduate. He wanted to earn his livelihood through transport business but due to shylock s attitude of the plaintiff, the defendants were not able to run the vehicles smoothly. Each time the plaintiff raised some baseless objections and claimed imaginary amounts. That apart the alleged agreements of hire purchase are vitiated due to fraud, unreasonableness and unduly harsh and ultimately being against public policy and interest. So the said agreements which are void cannot be executed through Court. The plaintiff are professional Money lenders. The instant case is hit by the provisions of Money Lenders Act because the plaintiffs have no licence at the time of advancement of money. Even though the defendants have signed blank agreements, the transactions out and out loan carrying stipulation of interest so it is hit by Money Lender s Act. The plaintiffs regularly do money lending business under the grab or hire purchase. Even though the defendants have signed blank agreements, the transactions out and out loan carrying stipulation of interest so it is hit by Money Lender s Act. The plaintiffs regularly do money lending business under the grab or hire purchase. " ( 7 ) ISSUES settled by the Trial Court: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to delivery of lorry ABT 644 and abt 645 to the plaintiff in running condition? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 23,600-00? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future damages of Rs. 5,900-00per month? (4) To what relief? ( 8 ) ORAL evidence available on record: p. W. 1-R Varadan and P. W. 2-5. Siva ramakrishna were examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The first defendant had examined himself as D. W. I. The father of the 1st defendant was examined as D. W. 2. ( 9 ) DOCUMENTARY evidence available on record:" a series exhibit A-1 29-11-1983 : Application of the Defendant No. 1 for the purchase of vehicle, under Hire-Purchase Scheme. Exhibit A-2 29-11-1983 : Proposal form given by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. Exhibit A-3 29-11-1983 : Application of the defendant No. 1 for the purpose of purchase of vehicle, under Hire Purchase Scheme. Exhibit A-4 29-11-1983 : Proposal form given by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. Exhibit A-5 29-11-1983 : Hire Purchase Agreement relating to vehicle bearing Registration No. ABT 647 exhibit A-6 29-11-1983 : Hire Purchase Agreement relating to vehicle bearing Registration No. ABT 646 exhibit A-7 29-11-1983 : Hire Purchase Agreement relating to vehicle bearing Registration No. ABT 645 exhibit A-8 29-11-1983 : Hire Purchase Agreement relating to vehicle bearing Registration No. ABT 644 exhibit A-9 25-1-1984 : Xerox copy of Registration Certificate Book relating to vehicle bearing Regn. No. ABT 647 exhibit A-10 25-1-1984 : Xerox copy of Registration Certificate Book relating to vehicle bearing Regn. No. ABT-645 exhibit A-11 : 25-1-1984 xerox copy Registration certificate Book relating to vehicle bearing Regn. No. ABT-644 exhibit A-12 : 1-12-1985 to 30-11-1986 insurance policy cover issued by United India Insurance Co. relating to Vehicle no. ABT 645 exhibit A-13 : 1-12-1985to 30-11-1986 Insurance policy cover issued by United India Insurance Co. relating to Vehicle No. ABT 644 exhibit A-14 : 30-1-1983 Receipt issued by Automotive Manufacturers Ltd. , for Rs. 10,12,7501- (on the back of ex. relating to Vehicle no. ABT 645 exhibit A-13 : 1-12-1985to 30-11-1986 Insurance policy cover issued by United India Insurance Co. relating to Vehicle No. ABT 644 exhibit A-14 : 30-1-1983 Receipt issued by Automotive Manufacturers Ltd. , for Rs. 10,12,7501- (on the back of ex. A. 14, it is noted that an amount of Rs. 5,95,810/- relates to the Defendant No. 1) exhibit A-15 : 2-12-1985 Notice of demand issued by the plaintiff to both the defendants-Vehicle No. ABT 644 exhibit A-16 : 2-12-1985 Notice of demand issued by the plaintiff to both the defendants-Vehicle No. ABT 645 exhibit A-17 : 2-12-1985 Notice of demand issued by the plaintiff to both the defendants-Vehicle No. ABT-646 exhibit A-18 : 2-12-1985 Notice of demand issued by the plaintiff to both the defendants-Vehicle No. ABT 647 exhibit A-19 : 25-11-1985 Notice issued by the defendant s Counsel to the plaintiff in respect of four vehicles (same as Ex. A. 16) exhibit A-20 : 4-12-1985 Reply by plaintiff s Counsel to the defendant s Counsel (reply to Ex. A-19 ). Exhibit A-21 : 5-12-1985 Reply given by the defendant s Counsel to the plaintiff s Counsel (with reference to Exs. A. 15 to 18) exhibit A-22 : 7-12-1985 Defendant s Rejoinder Notice (Rejoinder to Ex. A-20) exhibit A-23 : 3-12-1983 Vehicle sales invoice for Rs. 6,37,332/- for four trucks issued by Ashok Leyland Ltd. , Silvasa which refers to Cheque No. 545702 dated 29-11-1983 issued by Automotive Manufacturers Ltd. , favouring Ashok Leyland Ltd. Exhibit A-24 : 30-11-1983letter of the plaintiff to Automotive Manufacturers Ltd. enclosing Cheque No. 754114 for Rs. 10,12,750/ -. Exhibit A-25 : 12-1-1985 cheque No. 583536 for Rs. 82,380/- alleged to have been issued by Nagarjuna Finance to Indian Freight Carriers and said to have been encashed on 19-1-1985. "" b series exhibit B-1 3-12-1983 : Delivery Challan in respect of four vehicles issued by Ashok Leyland Ltd. , Silvasa. Exhibit B-2 29-7-1985 : Receipt No. 6510 for payment of Rs. 27,200/- issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-3 31-5-1985 : Receipt No. 5898 for payment of Rs. 27,200/- issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-4 3-4-1985 : Receipt No. 4945 for payment of Rs. 27,200/- issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-5 8-3-1985 : Receipt No. 4709 for payment of Rs. 27,200/- issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-3 31-5-1985 : Receipt No. 5898 for payment of Rs. 27,200/- issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-4 3-4-1985 : Receipt No. 4945 for payment of Rs. 27,200/- issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-5 8-3-1985 : Receipt No. 4709 for payment of Rs. 27,200/- issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-6 21-1-1985 : Receipt No. 4365 for payment of Rs. 54,400/- issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-7 29-9-1984 : Receipt No. 3309 for payment of Rs. 27,200/- issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-8 8-8-1984 : Receipt No. 2305 for payment of Rs. 27,200/- issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-9 19-4-1984 : Receipt No. 0565 for payment of Rs. 10,000/- issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-10 28-2-1984 : Receipt No. 0466 for payment of Rs. 27,200/- issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-11 8-8-1984 : Receipt No. Nil for payment of Rs. 98,800/-issued by the plaintiff to D. 1. Exhibit B-12 29-12-1984 : Letter of Nagarjuna Finance addressed to D. 2 relating to body building of 4 vehicles, done by D. 1 (refers to an amount of Rs. 92,380/- ). Exhibit B-13 15-1-1985 : Plaintiff asked the defendants to pay Rs. 54,400/- to Automotive Manufacturers Ltd. , Mr. Mahesh Sanghavi. Exhibit-B-14 30-11-1983 : Receipt for Rs. 41,332/- issued by Automotive Manufacturers Ltd. , in favour of Defendant No. 1 exhibit B-15 3-12-1983 : Order form for placing order with Ashok Leyland Ltd. , Silvasa for supply of 4 truck chasis. Exhibit B-16 25-11-1985 : Xerox copy of notice of the defendant to the plaintiff (same as Ex. A-19 ). "categorisation OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE PARTIES applications of the defendant No. 1 to obtain vehicles undei Hire Purchase Scheme-both, dated 29-11-1983 Ex. A. 1 Ex. A. 3 proposal form submitted by the Defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff, both, dated 29-11-1983. Ex. A. 2 Ex. A. 3 Hire Purchase Agreements all, dated 29-11-1983 Ex. A. 5 Ex. A. 6 Ex. A. 7 Ex. A. 8 registration Certificate Book-xerox copy all dated 25-1-1984 Ex. A. 9 -Vehicle No. ABT 647 Ex. A. 10 -Vehicle No. ABT 645 Ex. A. 11 -Vehicle No. ABT 644 Insurance Policy cover for vehicles both covering period 1-12-1985to30-11-1986 ex. A. 12 -Vehicle No. ABT 645 Ex. A. 5 Ex. A. 6 Ex. A. 7 Ex. A. 8 registration Certificate Book-xerox copy all dated 25-1-1984 Ex. A. 9 -Vehicle No. ABT 647 Ex. A. 10 -Vehicle No. ABT 645 Ex. A. 11 -Vehicle No. ABT 644 Insurance Policy cover for vehicles both covering period 1-12-1985to30-11-1986 ex. A. 12 -Vehicle No. ABT 645 Ex. A. 13 -Vehicle No. ABT 644 Payments receipts issued by the plaintiff: ex. B. 2 -for Rs. 27,200-00 Ex. B. 3 -for Rs. 27,200-00 Ex. B. 4 -for Rs. 27,200-00 Ex. B. 5 -for Rs. 27,200-00 Ex. B. 6 -for Rs. 54,400-00 Ex. B. 7 -for Rs. 27,200-00 Ex. B. 8 -for Rs. 27,200-00 Ex. B. 9 -for Rs. 10,000-00 Ex. B. 10 -for Rs. 27,200-00 Ex. B. 11 -for Rs. 98,800-00 Legal notice exchanged between the parties: ex. A. 15 Ex. A. 16 Ex. A. 17 ex. A. 18 Ex. A. 19 -Ex. B. 16 ex. A. 20 Ex. A. 21 Ex. A. 22 receipt for payment of Rs. 41, 332-00 to Automotive Manufacturers Ltd. , made by the defendant No. 1, dated 30-11-1983 ex. B. 14 Letter of the plaintiff to Automotive enclosing cheque for Rs. 10,12,750/- dated 30-11-1983. Ex. A. 24 Order form placed by the Defendant No. 1 with Ashok Leyland Ltd. , Silvasa for supply of 4 vehicle chasis dated 3-12-1983 ex. B. 15 Invoice issued by Ashok Leyland Ltd. , for sale of 4 vehicles chasis dated 3-12-1983 in the name of defendant No. 1 ex. A. 23 Delivery challan issued by Ashok Leyland Ltd. , Silvasa for delivery of 4 vehicle chasis to defendant No. 1 on 3-12-1983. Ex. B. 1 Letter of the plaintiff addressed to the defendant No. 2 relating to Body Building of 4 vehicles and refers to an amount of R. 92,380/- ex. B. 12 Plaintiff asked defendants to pay Rs. 54,4001- to Automotive Manufacturers Ltd. , Mr. Mahesh Sanghavi ex. B. 13 Cheque No. 583536 for Rs. 82,380/- dated 12-1-1985 said to have been issued by the plaintiff favouring India Freight Carriers. Ex. A. 25. ( 10 ) FINDINGS recorded by the Trial court: the Trial Court on appreciation of evidence available on record directed the defendants to pay the arrears of hire amount for each vehicle while answering Issue no. 1. The adjustment or deduction for a sum of Rs. 92,380/- covered by Exs. Ex. A. 25. ( 10 ) FINDINGS recorded by the Trial court: the Trial Court on appreciation of evidence available on record directed the defendants to pay the arrears of hire amount for each vehicle while answering Issue no. 1. The adjustment or deduction for a sum of Rs. 92,380/- covered by Exs. B. 12 and B. 13 had not been given credit to since a finding had been recorded that the same need not be deducted. The claim of damages had been negatived while answering Issue Nos. 2 and 3, and ultimately, the suit was partly decreed granting relief already specified supra while answering issue no. 4. ( 11 ) POINTS for consideration in the present appeal: (1) Whether the alternative relief granted partly decreeing the suit for money by the Trial Court to be disturbed in the appeal or to be confirmed ? (2) Whether the appellants are entitled to deductions and adjustments of rs. 92,380/- as claimed by the appellants-defendants ? (3) If so, to what relief the parties are entitled to ? ( 12 ) POINTS No. l and 2: Points 1 and 2, for the purpose of convenience, can be answered together. The respective pleadings of the parties and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, had been already referred to supra. Submissions at length were made. Whether the transactions in question can be termed as Hire Purchase agreements or mere loan transactions. Though the suit was filed for recovery of vehicles or for recovery of hire amount, the suit was decreed partly only. The 1st defendant approached the plaintiff for the purpose of hiring four lorries and entered into 4 Hire Purchase Agreements, dated 29-11-1983, for hiring 4 lorries bearing no. ABT-644, ABT-645, ABT-646 and abt-647 on the terms and conditions which had been stipulated in the said Hire purchase Agreements. The 2nd defendant stood as guarantor agreeing for joint and several liability for payment of hire amount, commencing from 29-1-1984 to 29-11-1986 as specified in the B-Schedule of the Hire purchase Agreements. The vehicles were delivered and they were registered in the name of the 1st defendant with Hire purchase Endorsement in favour of the plaintiff, as approved by Section 31-A of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. The vehicles were delivered and they were registered in the name of the 1st defendant with Hire purchase Endorsement in favour of the plaintiff, as approved by Section 31-A of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Though this aspect is not in serious controversy, the stand taken by the 1st defendant, in nutshell, is that he approached the plaintiff for finance facility, for which the plaintiff agreed, but insisted for execution of collateral security and nominally had got the hire Purchase Agreement, which was not acted upon and hence, it is only a simple loan transaction. ( 13 ) P. W. 1, Corporate Manager (Legal) of the plaintiff company, deposed about the details of these transactions. This witness deposed in detail how the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff company and purchased 4 vehicles under hire purchase and he had explained the procedure which would be adopted by the company also in this regard. This witness also deposed that the vehicles were delivered to the 1st defendant by supplier on receipt of payment and execution of document in favour of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant executed 4 Hire Purchase Agreements, one for each lorry, on 29-11-1983, and the 2nd defendant executed agreement as guarantor to the 1st defendant and the vehicles were registered in the name of the 1st defendant and endorsement is made in r. C. Book that the vehicles are under the hire purchase of the plaintiffs company. The 1st defendant gave application-Ex. A. 1 and proposal form-Ex. A. 2 for one lorry. Ex. A-3 is the application for another lorry and Ex. A. 4 is its proposal form. Exs. A. 5 to a. 8 are Hire Purchase Agreements executed by the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant as guarantor. It is needless to say that the present suit is in relation to 2 vehicles, out of 4 vehicles, already mentioned above. Ex. A. 7 is the Hire purchase Agreement relating to the lorry bearing No. ABT-645 and Ex. A. 7 is the hire Purchase Agreement relating to lorry bearing No. ABT-644. The 1st defendant also executed Hire Purchase Agreements- exs. A. 5 and A. 6 and the 2nd defendant was the guarantor in relation to the lorries bearing No. ABT-647 and ABT-646. Ex. A. 9 is the xerox copy of the Certificate of registration in respect of vehicle bearing regn. No. ABT-647. Ex. The 1st defendant also executed Hire Purchase Agreements- exs. A. 5 and A. 6 and the 2nd defendant was the guarantor in relation to the lorries bearing No. ABT-647 and ABT-646. Ex. A. 9 is the xerox copy of the Certificate of registration in respect of vehicle bearing regn. No. ABT-647. Ex. A. 10 is the xerox copy of the Certificate of Registration in respect of vehicle bearing Regn. No. ABT-645. Ex. A. 11 is the Certificate of registration in respect of vehicle bearing regn. No. ABT-644. P. W. 1 also deposed that Ex. A. 12 is the Insurance Policy of united India Insurance Company relating to vehicle bearing No. ABT-645. Ex. A. 13 is the Insurance Policy of United India insurance Company relating to vehicle bearing No. ABT-644. Ex. A. 14 is the receipt given by Automotive Manufacturers ltd. , stating that they received a sum of rs. 10,12,750/- from M/s. Nagarjuna Finance ltd. , i. e. , the plaintiff company, under cheque No. 754114, dated 30-11-1983. On the reverse of it, the amount relating to the 4 vehicles is mentioned as Rs. 5,95,810/ -. The plaintiff is concerned with this amount only in this suit. The plaintiff is not concerned with the other amounts mentioned in Ex. A. 14 because they relate to some other vehicles. Here Exs. A. 12 and A. 13 contain an endorsement of hire purchase in favour of the plaintiff. Exs. A. 15 to A. 18 are office copies of the notices of demand, addressed to both defendants and Ex. A. 19 is the notice issued by the defendants counsel to the plaintiff in respect of 4 vehicles and Ex. A. 20 is the office copy of reply notice issued by plaintiffs Counsel to the defendants Counsel and Ex. A. 21 is the reply notice issued by the defendants counsel to the notice under Exs. A. 15 to a. 18. Ex. A. 22 is the reply notice of defendants Counsel to Ex. A. 20. This witness also deposed about the other documents available on record. No doubt, the stand taken by the defendants is that the plaintiff had obtained their signatures in blank documents promising that these documents would be only by way of collateral security and would be nominal and would not be acted upon. That is the evidence of d. W. 1 and also the evidence of D. W. 2. No doubt, the stand taken by the defendants is that the plaintiff had obtained their signatures in blank documents promising that these documents would be only by way of collateral security and would be nominal and would not be acted upon. That is the evidence of d. W. 1 and also the evidence of D. W. 2. The Hire Purchase Agreement consists of 2 forms, one if proposal and another is agreement. On a careful scrutiny of Exs. A. 6 and A. 7 and taking into consideration, the cqntents of these documents and the conditions specified therein, there cannot be any doubt or controversy that these are hire Purchase Agreements. Even the stand taken by the defendants is that the signatures were obtained in certain papers on the ground that those documents would be used as collateral security. In the light of the evidence of the defendants and the conduct of the defendants, the stand taken by the defendants in this regard cannot be believed. A Full Bench of the hyderabad High Court in Kasal Narayan v. An Manala Laxmi Narasimmam, AIR 1955 Hyd. 104, while dealing with the test to determine Hire Purchase Agreement held as hereunder:"the leading test for determining whether an agreement is that of sale or of hire purchase is to take into consideration, the fact that whether an option to terminate the agreement has been reserved to the hirer. And if such an option is given then the agreement is generally held to be of hire purchase. In other words, where a person has right to terminate the agreement for hire at his pleasure and is not bound to pay the value of the goods, it is a Hire purchase Agreement. The option, however, must be real one and the hirer must not be compelled to the exercise of the option. "reliance was also placed on Dalpat Rai v. M/s. Manohar Lal and Sons and others, air 1974 Raj. 61 and Shyamsunder Bubna v. Manindra Nath Ghose and another, air 1967 Calcutta 256. In K. L. Johar and co. v. Dy. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1965 SC 1082 , while dealing with the aspect of Hire Purchase Agreement, the Apex court held:"this brings us to a consideration of the validity of Explanation 1, which we have akeady set out. 61 and Shyamsunder Bubna v. Manindra Nath Ghose and another, air 1967 Calcutta 256. In K. L. Johar and co. v. Dy. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1965 SC 1082 , while dealing with the aspect of Hire Purchase Agreement, the Apex court held:"this brings us to a consideration of the validity of Explanation 1, which we have akeady set out. It is necessary in this connection to understand the nature of a typical Hire Purchase Agreement as distinct from a sale in which the price is to be paid later by instalments. In the case of a sale in which the price is to be paid by instalments, the property passes as soon as the sale in made, even though the price has not been fully paid and may later be paid in instalments. This follows from the definition of sale in Section 4 of the Indian sale of Goods Act (as distinguished from an agreement to sell) which requires that the seller transfers the property in the goods to the buyer for a price. The essence of a sale is that the property is transferred from the seller to the buyer for a price, whether paid at once or paid later in instalments. On the other hand, a Hire purchase Agreement, as its very name implies, has two aspects. There is first an aspect of bailment of the goods subjected to the Hire Purchase Agreement, and there is next an element of sale which fructifies when the option to purchase, which is usually a term of Hire Purchase agreement, is exercised by the intending purchaser. Thus the intending purchaser is known as the hirer so long as the option to purchase is not exercise, and the essence of a Hire Purchase Agreement properly so called is that the property in the goods does not pass at the time of the agreement but remains in the intending seller and only passes later when the option is exercised by the intending purchaser. The distinguishing feature of a typical Hire purchase Agreement therefore is that the property does not pass when the agreement is made but only passes when the option is finally exercised after complying with all the terms of the agreement. The next question that arises is whether a hire Purchase Agreement ever ripens into a sale and if so when. The distinguishing feature of a typical Hire purchase Agreement therefore is that the property does not pass when the agreement is made but only passes when the option is finally exercised after complying with all the terms of the agreement. The next question that arises is whether a hire Purchase Agreement ever ripens into a sale and if so when. We have akeady pointed out that a Hire Purchase Agreement has two elements: (1) element of bailment, and (2) element of sale, in the sense that it contemplates an eventual sale. The element of sale fructifies when the option is exercised by the intending purchaser after fulfilling the terms of the agreement. When all the terms of the agreement are satisfied and the option is exercised a sale takes place of the goods which till then had been hired. When this sale takes place it will be liable to sales tax under the Act for the taxable event under the Act is the taking place of the sale, the Act providing for a multi-point sales tax at die relevant time. Where however option is not exercised or cannot be exercised because of the inability of the intending purchaser to fulfil the terms of the agreement, there is no sale at all. As the taxable event is the sale of goods, the tax can only be levied when the option is exercised after fulfilling all the terms of the Hire Purchase agreement. We cannot agree with the view of the High Court that because in most of such cases the option is exercised, tax is leviable immediately on the making of the hire Purchase Agreement and that in a few cases where there is failure to carry out the terms of the agreement or to exercise the option, there can be adjustment by elimination of such portion of the turnover. As we have pointed out the taxable event under the Act is the sale of goods and until that taxable event takes pkce there can be no liability to pay tax. As we have pointed out the taxable event under the Act is the sale of goods and until that taxable event takes pkce there can be no liability to pay tax. Therefore, even though eventually most cases of hire-purchase may result in sales by the exercise of the option and the fulfilment of the terms of the agreement, tax is not exigible at the time when the hire Purchase Agreement is made, for at that time the taxable event has not taken pkce; it can only be exigible when the option has been exercised and all the terms of agreement fulfilled and the sale actually takes place. When sale takes place in a particular case will depend upon the terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement but till the sale takes place there can be no liability to sales tax under die Act. The high Court therefore was in error in holding that transactions of hire-purchase of the kind with which we are dealing having regard to their main intent and purpose might be treated as sales at the time the agreement is entered into; in all hire Purchase Agreements of the type with which we are dealing sale only takes pkce when the option is exercised after all the terms of the agreements are fulfilled and it is at that time that the tax is exigible. "in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. the State of kerala and another, AIR 1966 SC 1178 , the Apex Court held at Para 24 as hereunder:"the true effect of a transaction may be determined from the terms of the agreement considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances. In each case, the Court has, unless prohibited by statute, power to go behind the documents and to determine the nature of the transaction, whatever may be the form of the documents. An owner of goods who purports absolutely to convey or acknowledges to have conveyed goods and subsequently purports to hire them under a Hire Purchase Agreement is not estopped from proving that the real bargain was a loan on the security of the goods. If mere is a bona fide and completed sale of goods, evidenced by documents, anterior to and independent of a subsequent and distinct hiring to the vendor, the transaction may not be regarded as a loan transaction, even though the reason for which it was entered into was to raise money. If mere is a bona fide and completed sale of goods, evidenced by documents, anterior to and independent of a subsequent and distinct hiring to the vendor, the transaction may not be regarded as a loan transaction, even though the reason for which it was entered into was to raise money. If the real transaction is a loan of money secured by a right of seizure of the goods, the property ostensibly passes under the documents embodying the transaction, but subject to the terms of the hiring agreement, which become part of the buyer s title, and confer a licence to seize. When a person desiring to purchase goods and not having sufficient money on hand borrows the amount needed from a third person and pays it over to the vendor, the transaction between the customer and the lender will unquestionably be a loan transaction. The real character of the transaction would not be altered if the lender himself is the owner of the goods and the owner accepts the promise of the purchaser to pay the price or the balance remaining due against delivery of goods. But a Hire purchase Agreement is a more complex transaction. . The owner under the Hire purchase Agreement enters into a transaction of hiring out goods on the terms and condition set out in the agreement, and the option to purchase exercisable by the customer on payment of all the instalments of hire arises when the instalments are paid and not before. In such a Hire Purchase Agreement there is no agreement to buy goods; the hirer being under no legal obligation to buy, has an option eldler to return the goods or to become its owner by payment in full of the stipulated hire and the price for exercising the option. This class of Hire purchase Agreement must be distinguished from transaction in which the customer is the owner of the goods and with a view to finance his purchase he enters into an arrangement which is in the form of a hire Purchase Agreement with the financier, but in substance evidence a loan transaction, subject to hiring agreement under which the lender is given the licence to seize the goods. " ( 14 ) AS per the evidence available on record, the plaintiff company paid an amount of Rs. " ( 14 ) AS per the evidence available on record, the plaintiff company paid an amount of Rs. l0,12,750/- to the dealer M/s. Automotive Manufacturing Limited, out of which a sum of Rs. 5,95,810/- related to the amount regarding the 4 vehicles. Exs. A. 12 and A. 13 are the Insurance Policies relating to the 2 vehicles in question. The owners of the vehicles are shown as Nagarjuna finance Limited. D. W. 1 also deposed that he had not objected at any time for the endorsement by Insurance Company in exs. A. 12 and A. 13 relating to Hire Purchase agreements with Nagarjuna Finance limited. D. W. 1 further admitted that the r. C. Books-Exs. A. 9 and A. 10 specified such endorsement subject to hypothecation. Exs. A. 7 and A. 8 also establish this aspect that the vehicles were taken by the 1st defendant on hire. Even in Certificate of Registration, it is shown that the vehicles are subject to hypothecation in favour of nagarjuna Finance Limited. The name of the 1st defendant was shown only for the purpose of running the vehicles in the light of Section 31-A of the Motor vehicle Taxation Act. On a careful scrutiny of the Hire Purchase Agreements in question, they contain several clauses inclusive of the default clause that in the event of default committed by the hirer, the owner has every right to seize the vehicle and the hirer also got a right to become the owner of the vehicle after paying all the instalments under Hire Purchase agreement. Clauses 15 and 21 amply establish the same. The Trial Court in fact recorded reasons in detail at Para 13 why the blank document theory set up by the defendants cannot be believed. When the value of the vehicles is taken into consideration and the amounts paid, if compared, there cannot be any doubt that there was some default. Ex. A. 23 shows the value of 4 Ashok Leyland Vehicles chasis. P. W. I deposed about the total value of the 4 vehicles and also the payment made by the plaintiff. Ex. A. 14 is the receipt issued by M/s. Automotive Manufacturers limited showing a sum of Rs. 5,95,810/- relating to 4 vehicles financed by the plaintiff company and it is needless to say that the 1st defendant is only hirer. P. W. I deposed about the total value of the 4 vehicles and also the payment made by the plaintiff. Ex. A. 14 is the receipt issued by M/s. Automotive Manufacturers limited showing a sum of Rs. 5,95,810/- relating to 4 vehicles financed by the plaintiff company and it is needless to say that the 1st defendant is only hirer. At Para 15, the Trial Court has taken pains to record findings relating to certain payments. It is not in controversy that the 1st defendant paid 13 instalments of Rs. 6,800/- on each of the vehicle and had not paid the other instalments. P. W. I also deposed about the custody of the vehicles bearing No. ABT- 646 and ABT-647 on 29-11-1985 and by that time an amount of Rs. 88,400/- for each of the vehicle had been paid by the defendants in relation to the 2 vehicles. P. W. I also further deposed that the plaintiff sold 2 vehicles on 27-10-1986 and realized a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- by sale of these 2 vehicles. P. W. I further deposed that for the sale of 2 vehicles, they have not made any publication in any newspapers calling quotations and the sale was arranged by private negotiations. P. W. 1 denied the suggestion that each of the vehicle, by the time of seizure and sale, was worth not less than Rs. 2,25,000/ -. As per the admissions of the plaintiff, the 2 vehicles were sold for Rs. 2,70,000/-, at the rate of rs. 1,35,000/-, for each vehicle. It was also further admitted that the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 88,400/- for each vehicle concerned. The total amount for each vehicle is Rs. 2,30,100/- and the 1st defendant paid a sum of Rs. 88,400/ -. The balance amount remains to be paid for each vehicle is rs. 1,41,700/ -. The plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs. 1,94,348/- being arrears of other amount, though the actual amount due is rs. 1,41,700/ -. The plaintiff evidently calculated interest at 30% as per Clause-20 in Hire purchase Agreements, Exs. A. 7 and A. 8, which says that all sums due from the hirer to the owner under the agreement will carry interest at 30% per annum from due date until the date of payment by the hirer. The plaintiff himself admitted that the amount of Rs. A. 7 and A. 8, which says that all sums due from the hirer to the owner under the agreement will carry interest at 30% per annum from due date until the date of payment by the hirer. The plaintiff himself admitted that the amount of Rs. 65,100/- which was added for each vehicle includes interest at 14% per annum. So, for instalments of amount, the plaintiff already calculated interest at 14% per annum. Further, P. W. 1 also stated in his evidence that whenever the instalments are paid, the interest is not calculated by reducing balances of the principal amount, as there is no system of reducing in Hire Purchase Agreement and they are not calculated interest by reducing balance on account of Hire Purchase Agreement. So, as and when the instalment amount was paid, the amounts are not reduced. So, the plaintiff fixed 35 instalments with specific amounts by calculating interest at 14% per annum. Further, by payment of instalments, the principal amount will not be reduced. If that is so, the interest was already calculated while fixing the amount of instalments. The plaintiff has not produced any data as to how it arrived at the figure of Rs. 1,94,348/ -. Evidently, the plaintiff might have calculated interest at 30% per annum, which is certainly penal in nature, which cannot be granted, though there is a clause in Hire Purchase agreement to that effect. Further, the plaintiff is not entitled interest on interest. The plaintiff filed this suit on 21-1-1987. By that time, the 1st defendant paid 13 instalments. The 1st defendant paid 13 instalments and 13th instalment is dated 29-1-1985. The 1st defendant agreed to pay instalments regularly as per B-Schedule, and he cannot commit default in payment of instalments and as per the terms of the agreement, he is liable to pay interest at 30% per annum from the due date on instalment amount. The claiming of interest at 30% per annum is certainly penal in nature. Further, the plaintiff also is not giving any reduction in instalment amounts after paying instalment amounts. The 1st defendant has to pay 35 instalments as mentioned in B-Schedule. The trial Court in fact recorded all the details in this regard. On the aspect of the adjustment or deduction to be given to Rs. 92,380/-, covered by Exs. Further, the plaintiff also is not giving any reduction in instalment amounts after paying instalment amounts. The 1st defendant has to pay 35 instalments as mentioned in B-Schedule. The trial Court in fact recorded all the details in this regard. On the aspect of the adjustment or deduction to be given to Rs. 92,380/-, covered by Exs. B. 12 and B. 13, the Trial court discussed the evidence in detail and ultimately negatived the same. The Trial court had taken into consideration the calculation Memo filed along with the written statement filed by the 1st defendant and also Exs. A. 7, A. 8 and several other documents and also discussed the evidence in detail of D. Ws. l and 2 and the other litigations inclusive of O. S. No. 8/84. D. W. 1 deposed that his father-2nd defendant placed orders for obtaining 4 Tipper vehicles from ashok Leyland Ltd. , Madras, and there was financial requirement and his father paid some advance and balance amount to be obtained from the plaintiff by way of loan. The Trial Court, had taken into consideration Ex. B. 12 and Ex. B. 13, the evidence of P. W. 1 and also D. W. 1. The trial Court also discussed the evidence of p. W. 2. P. W. 2 deposed that the cheque for rs. 92,380/- was issued by the plaintiff to india Freight Carriers and the cheque was signed by V. Shankaran, Finance Manager and and Premnath Rao, Company Secretary and he can identify their signatures. Ex. A. 25 is the cheque and the cheque-Ex. A-25 does not relate to the suit transaction. The evidence on record in relation to Exs. B. 12 and B. 13 had been discussed in detail at para 17 by the Trial Court. P. W. 1 also deposed about the receipts-Exs. B. 2, B. 3, B4, b. 5, B. 6, B. 7, B. 8, B. 9, B. 10 and B. 11 shown to him. The learned Judge had taken pains to calculate the amounts covered by these receipts. The evidence of P. W. 1 would go to show that the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 88,400/- for each of the vehicle and an amount of Rs. 1,76,800/- had been paid relating to the other 2 vehicles-ABT/ 646 and ABT-647 which were seized and sold by the plaintiff and an amount of rs. The evidence of P. W. 1 would go to show that the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 88,400/- for each of the vehicle and an amount of Rs. 1,76,800/- had been paid relating to the other 2 vehicles-ABT/ 646 and ABT-647 which were seized and sold by the plaintiff and an amount of rs. 92,380/- was paid by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant towards body building charges of 4 vehicles, incurred by the 2nd defendant. D. W. I deposed in his evidence that as specified in Ex. B. 13, he complied with the payment of Rs. 54,400/- to Mr. Mahesh sanghi and for the said payment made by him, the plaintiff had given adjustment by issuing receipt Ex. B. 6, dated 21-1-1985. The amount of Rs. 54,400/- covered by ex. B. 6 was included in the amount of rs. 88,400/- paid by the 1st, defendant towards instalment. The amount covered by ex. A. 25 was sent towards price difference of vehicles between Madras and Silvasa. The evidence of P. W. 2 in this regard would assume some importance. P. W. 2 deposed that many parties were purchasing Tipper leyland vehicles manufactured by Ashok leyland from Silvasa Office of Ashok leyland and the reason was that there was heavy commercial tax in Andhra Pradesh for those vehicles whereas there was no tax in Silvasa, and he had given details about the same. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of P. W. 2 that the amount covered by Ex. A. 25 was sent towards the price difference of vehicles between Hyderabad and Silvasa. In the light of the reasons in detail recorded by the Trial Court on a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and also D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 and the documentary evidence available on record, inclusive of Exs. B. 12 and B. 13, and exs. B. 2 and B11, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court that there need not be any adjustment or deduction, as claimed by the appellants, need not be disturbed in any way. The Trial Court in fact had taken pains to record all the reasons at Paragraph Nos. 17, 18 and 19 in this regard. The Trial Court in fact had taken pains to record all the reasons at Paragraph Nos. 17, 18 and 19 in this regard. In the light of the reasons recorded supra, the question of non-production of accounts may not help the appellants-defendants in any way for the reason that all the transactions are evidenced by the documents and the Trial Court had taken into consideration all these aspects and after calculations and making the necessary adjustments and after recording reasons and specifically negativing the adjustment or deduction claimed for Rs. 92,380/-, partly decreed the suit. No doubt, certain submissions were made relating to the interest of 14% per annum, which had been charged. This is a commercial transaction and this Court is of the considered opinion that the charging of the said interest cannot be said to be on higher side. In view of the same, the findings recorded by the Trial court are hereby confirmed. ( 15 ) POINT No. 3.- In the light of the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by this Court, confirming the findings of the Trial Court, the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed. However, since the suit was partly decreed, after appreciating certain deductions and adjustments even by the Trial Court, this Court directs the parties to bear their own costs.