Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13-3-2007, passed by iiird Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 4-B/2006, whereby suit filed by the respondents was decreed and the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,02,501/- along with interest on Rs. 75,000/- @ 6 % p. a. w. e. f. 19-11-2002, the present appeal has been filed. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit for realization of amount of Rs. 1,02,501/- on 18-11-2002 alleging that Ramesh chandra was the son of respondent No. 1 and brother of respondent No. 2. Appellant was having good relations with deceased Ramesh Chandra Jain. It was alleged that appellant was in need of money and a sum of Rs. 75,000/-was lent by deceased Ramesh Chandra Jain to the appellant and appellant gave a post dated cheque to deceased Ramesh. It was alleged that the cheque which was given by the appellant to the respondents was bearing cheque No. 1992240 of Dena Bank, Jail Road, Indore, which was payable on 20-11-1999. It was alleged that the cheque was issued by the respondents as proprietor of M/s. M. C. J. Fuel Corporation. Further case of respondents was that deceased ramesh in his life time presented the cheque for collection through M. P. State co-operative Bank, Indore, but the same was returned by Dena Bank with a memo dated 19-5-2000, wherein it was mentioned that it "exceeds arrangement". Further case of respondents was that after the return of the cheque a demand was made by the deceased Ramesh in his life time and after his death by the respondents. Lastly, the demand was made vide notice dated 10-6-2002, which was duly served on the appellant, but wrong reply was given, hence the suit was filed. ( 3. ) THE suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement, wherein plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that any amount was taken by the appellant from deceased Ramesh Chandra. It was also alleged that appellant was having no relation with the deceased Ramesh. Deceased Ramesh was having relations with one Narayan. Narayan has taken loan from deceased ramesh Chandra. Appellant was having good relations with Narayan and because of good relation with Narayan and the money was given by Ramesh to narayan appellant gave a cheque of Rs. It was also alleged that appellant was having no relation with the deceased Ramesh. Deceased Ramesh was having relations with one Narayan. Narayan has taken loan from deceased ramesh Chandra. Appellant was having good relations with Narayan and because of good relation with Narayan and the money was given by Ramesh to narayan appellant gave a cheque of Rs. 75,000/- to the deceased Ramesh. It was also alleged that Narayan has paid the amount which has taken by him from ramesh. Thereafter, the appellant demanded for return of cheque, but appellant was informed by deceased Ramesh that cheque has been misplaced. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Trial Court decreed the suit, against which present appeal has been filed. ( 4. ) MR. A. K. Sethi, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that learned Trial Court committed error in decreeing the suit. It is submitted that ramesh died on 21-12-2001 and thereafter some of the legal representatives of deceased has filed the suit. Learned Counsel submits that the suit itself was not maintainable in view of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, which reads as under:- 214. Proof of representative title a condition precedent to recovery through the Courts of debts from debtors of deceased persons.- (l)No Court shall- (a) pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the effect of the deceased person or to any part thereof. (b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled, to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production, by the person so claiming of- (i) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant to him of administration to the estate of the deceased, or (ii) a certificate granted under Section 31 or Section 32 of the Administrator Generals Act, 1913 (3 of 1913), and having the debt mentioned therein, or (iii) a succession certificate granted under Part X and having the debt specified therein. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of kerala High Court in the matter of Raman Namboodiri Vs. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of kerala High Court in the matter of Raman Namboodiri Vs. Chaldean Syrian bank Ltd. , reported in AIR 1960 Kerala 84, wherein the Divisional Bench of kerala High Court has held that person cannot claim to recover debt due to deceased without production of succession certificate. ( 6. ) RELIANCE was also placed on a decision in the matter of Bhaiya Ji Vs. Jageshwar Dayal Bajpai, reported in AIR 1978 Allahabad 268, wherein it was held that :- "the purpose of Section 214 is to make clear that no debt to a deceased person can be recovered through the Court except by a holder of one of the documents mentioned in the Section, the only exception being either whether the claim is made on survivorship, or whether it is in respect of rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes Section 214 does not make, any distinction between Hindus, and non-Hindus. It treats everybody alike. The only necessary thing is that there should be a relationship of debtor and creditor between the person from whom money is claimed and the deceased at the time of the latters death. However, Section 214 does not debar the filing of the suit. It merely debars a Court from passing a decree. If a suit has been filed the court is forbidden from passing a decree on the basis of a debt against the debtor of the deceased. " ( 7. ) LEARNED Counsel further submits that since there was no agreement for payment of interest, therefore, learned Court below committed error in awarding interest. For this contention reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Banshilal Kharakwar Vs. Narbada Prasad Chourasia, reported in 2004 (4) MPLJ 77, wherein it was held that in absence of agreement for payment of interest between parties, interest cannot be granted. ( 8. ) IT is also submitted that since no transaction has taken place between the parties, therefore, suit could not have been decreed. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is nothing on record to show that Ramesh Chandra is no more, as death certificate has not been filed. It is also submitted that suit is barred by limitation. It is submitted that initially the suit was filed as an indigent person. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is nothing on record to show that Ramesh Chandra is no more, as death certificate has not been filed. It is also submitted that suit is barred by limitation. It is submitted that initially the suit was filed as an indigent person. Vide order dated 3-4-2004, learned Court below held that respondents are not entitled to get the benefit to prosecute the appeal as an indigent person and was directed to pay the Court fee. It is submitted that Court fee was deposited on 6-5-2006 and respondents prayed for extension of time under Section 149 of CPC. It is submitted that since the suit was not properly presented along with the requisite Court fee, therefore, the suit was barred by law under the provisions of Limitation Act. Learned Counsel further submits that the alleged cheque was dated 20-11-1999, while the same was returned with the memo of Dena Bank Exh. P-2 on 19-5-2000. It is submitted that since the suit was filed on 6-5-2006, when the requisite Court fee was paid, therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable. ( 9. ) MR. Dilip Kshirsagar, learned Counsel for respondents submit that suit was not filed by the respondents as indigent person, but since the respondent No. 1 is woman, therefore, exemption from payment of Court fee was claimed under Section 35- B of the Court Fees Act. It is submitted that the prayer was refused. The Court fee was deposited by the respondents within the time given by the learned Court below. It is submitted that it is true that it took time in depositing the amount of Court fee, but the time was extended by the court below from time to time, therefore, it cannot be said that suit is barred by law of limitation. So far as the transaction is concerned learned Counsel submits that respondents have examined respondent No. 1 as P. W. 1 and respondent No. 2 as P. W. 2 and also one independent witness in whose presence the transaction of money took place. It is submitted that after due appreciation of the evidence the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit, which requires no interference. It is submitted that after due appreciation of the evidence the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit, which requires no interference. Learned Counsel further submits that since the document which was in possession of respondents was a cheque, which is a negotiable instrument, therefore, there is a presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable instruments Act in favour of respondents. So far as succession certificate is concerned, learned Counsel submits that filing of the suit is not barred under section 214 of the Indian Succession Act. It is also submitted that even passing of the decree is also not barred. The only thing which is not permissible is the decree holder cannot execute the decree till succession certificate is obtained. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Binapani Kar chowdhury Vs. Sri Satyabrata Basu, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 442 , wherein it was held that Section 213 bars executor or legatee under a Will from establishing any right under the Will unless probate or letters of administration is obtained, while it does not bar institution of a suit for declaration of title and possession of property by the executor or legatee claiming under a Will but it bars passing of a decree or a final order in such suit until and unless probate or letters of administration is obtained by the executor or legatee. In the said case it was also observed that with a view to do complete justice between the parties, it is appropriate to direct the Trial Court where the suit is pending, to proceed to hear arguments and deliver judgment in the suit. Nothing further will be required, if the suit is to be dismissed. But if the suit is to be decreed, the Trial court should make it clear that the judgment and decree will come into effect only on the first obtaining and producing the probate of the Will, and till then the decree should be considered only as provisional and not to be given effect. Learned Counsel submits that the learned Trial Court has also directed that respondents cannot execute the decree without obtaining the succession certificate. ( 10. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the matter of Binapani Kar (supra), is not at all applicable in the present case. Learned Counsel submits that the learned Trial Court has also directed that respondents cannot execute the decree without obtaining the succession certificate. ( 10. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the matter of Binapani Kar (supra), is not at all applicable in the present case. It is submitted that in that case deceased person in his life time filed the suit, while in the present case, the facts are altogether different. Ramesh in whose favour the alleged cheque has been issued died before filing of the suit, therefore, no advantage can be given to the respondents by this authority. ( 11. ) FROM perusal of the record it is evident that the respondents who are the mother and the sister of the deceased Ramesh were possessing the negotiable instrument, i. e. , cheque, which was issued by the appellant in favour of deceased Ramesh Chandra. Appellants came with the case that the transaction took place between one Narayan and Ramesh and in lieu of that, cheque was given by the appellant. The burden was on the appellant to prove that there was no transaction between the parties and the cheque was issued in security and also the amount which was taken by Narayan was duly paid to deceased Ramesh Chandra. Not only this, there is no evidence on record in that regard. After the death of Ramesh a demand notice was issued by the respondents and in reply also it was not denied by the appellant the cheque was given by him to the deceased Ramesh. In the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that learned Trial Court has rightly granted the decree against the appellants and in favour of respondents. So far as award of interest is concerned the learned Trial Court has awarded the interest @ 6 % p. a. It is true that there is nothing on record to show that there was any agreement for payment of interest. So far as award of interest is concerned the learned Trial Court has awarded the interest @ 6 % p. a. It is true that there is nothing on record to show that there was any agreement for payment of interest. However, since it was a negotiable instrument which was being possessed by the respondents and as per Section 80 of the Negotiable instruments Act when no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount due thereon shall be calculated at the rate of 18 % p. a. However, in the present case the respondents has claimed interest only @ 6 % which appears to be reasonable. Since deceased Ramesh has died and the suit has been filed by the respondents who are claiming themselves to be legal representatives of the deceased and the suit has been decreed, therefore, in the interest of justice between the parties it is directed that the decree shall be treated as provisional and will not be given effect till respondents obtained and produce the succession certificate. ( 12. ) WITH the aforesaid observations appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.