Judgment Sunil Thomas J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.54 of 2004 of the Sub Court, Kottayam in a suit for recovery of money. Defeated defendants are the appellants. 2. The case set up by the plaintiff before the court below was based on an agreement for sale. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property belonged to the first defendant and on receipt of a consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- by the first defendant, both the defendants executed an agreement for sale on 29.10.1997 in favour of the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. The original settlement deed executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant was handed over. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, in February 1998, the defendants requested to withdraw from the agreement which was accepted by the plaintiff. On 28.02.1998, first defendant delivered a cheque for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and promised to repay the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest before 15.04.1998. This was endorsed on the agreement for sale. The cheque was collected. However, the defendants failed to pay the money as agreed. Hence, on discussion between the parties, the period for repayment was extended up to 30.01.2001, which was also endorsed on the agreement. However, in spite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to pay the money. Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of money of Rs.3,50,000/- with future interest @18%. 3. The defendants appeared and filed a written statement denying the execution of the agreement for sale. It was contended that the agreement dated 29.10.1997 was a sham document and was not intended to be treated as an agreement for sale. It was contended that the first defendant and his family were conducting a partnership business under the name and style 'Ambat Enterprises'. The plaintiff and his family were conducting a partnership financial institution under the name 'Standard Financiers'. Both the firms had cheque discounting business since 1995. Towards the above, cheques to third parties were delivered by the defendants to the plaintiff and to facilitate the above transaction, an agreement styled as an agreement for sale dated 29.10.1997 was executed. Cheques issued by Ambat Enterprises were obtained by Standard Financiers as per the cheque discounting business and encashed by sending it to bank. There were several financial transactions between both the firms. Cheques issued by Ambat Enterprises were obtained by Standard Financiers as per the cheque discounting business and encashed by sending it to bank. There were several financial transactions between both the firms. Subsequently, the agreement deed was extended up to 31.01.2001, though there were no financial transactions after 04.03.1998. The allegation that the defendants had accepted Rs.7,50,000/- of rupees from the plaintiff was false. The agreement was given only as a security for the financial transaction. The duration of the agreement was extended to 30.01.2001 in anticipation of future business. On 04.03.1998, plaintiff obtained an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on encashing the cheque. Thereafter, he did not demand any amount and no money is due to the plaintiff from the defendants. 4. On the basis of the rival contentions, appropriate issues were framed by the court below and both the parties adduced evidence. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. First defendant was examined as DW1 and DW2 was also examined. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on their side. Exts.X1 to X5(a) were marked as court exhibits. 5. Court below on an evaluation of the available materials, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with @12% interest from 28.02.1998 till the date of suit and thereafter, @ 6% till realization. 6. The above judgment and decree is assailed by the defendants in this appeal. Heard both sides and records were perused. 7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment and decree of the court below is legally sustainable. 8. The plaintiff tendered evidence in accordance with his plaint claim on the strength of Ext.A1 agreement for sale. He deposed that defendants had entered into an agreement for sale and had received Rs.7,50,000/- as advance. Thereafter in February 1998, he proposed to resile from the agreement and Rs.4,00,000/- was returned by way of cheque on 28.02.1998 and offered to return Rs.3,50,000/- of rupees with interest before 15.04.1998. Though default was committed, the suit is seen laid only in 2004. 9. The crux of the defence of the defendants was that the plaintiff was running a financial concern under the name and style Standard Financiers along with his family members. The defendants were running rubber dealing business under the name and style Ambat Enterprises. According to the defendants, they used to avail cheque discounting facilities with the firm of the plaintiff. The crux of the defence of the defendants was that the plaintiff was running a financial concern under the name and style Standard Financiers along with his family members. The defendants were running rubber dealing business under the name and style Ambat Enterprises. According to the defendants, they used to avail cheque discounting facilities with the firm of the plaintiff. There was a recession in the rubber price during the period 1997 to 1998 and hence at the instance of the plaintiff, the above document was entered in to only to be intended as a security for future cheque discounting transaction. Along with the above, title deed was also handed over. Since the parties intended to fix a limit for the cheque discounting business as Rs.8,00,000/-, it was shown as the total consideration of the document. In essence, the contention was that Ext.A1 was only a security for future cheque discounting business. 10. Both sides let in evidence in accordance with their rival contentions. Though, the plaintiff in his evidence as PW1 relied on the version given in the plaint, in the course of the cross examination he admitted that his father was running a business under the name and style Standard Financiers, and that the above concern had cheque discounting transaction with Ambat Enterprises run by the defendants. According to PW1, both had transaction till last of 1998. However, he could not properly explain as to why there was a delay in filing the suit though the alleged breach of agreement occurred in 1998. 11. DW1 is the first defendant himself, who, in the cross examination was confronted with the details of various business transactions. To substantiate the case of the first defendant, DW2 the Manager of Standard Financiers was summoned. Through him, the cash book, ledger book and the cheque purchase register of Standard Financiers during the disputed period were marked as Exts.X1 to X5(a). The relevant page of day book and ledger of the defendant were let in as Exts.B1 to B4. 12. A perusal of the above documentary evidence coupled with the testimony of the witnesses indicate that during the period 1997 and 1998, both firms had several transactions. It has also come out in evidence that thereafter there was no substantial business between the firms. The cross examination revolved around the above testimony. 12. A perusal of the above documentary evidence coupled with the testimony of the witnesses indicate that during the period 1997 and 1998, both firms had several transactions. It has also come out in evidence that thereafter there was no substantial business between the firms. The cross examination revolved around the above testimony. However, the question narrows down as to whether from the lengthy oral testimony of both sides, is there any material to reach a conclusion that Ext.A1 was executed only as a security for the cheque discounting transaction during the period 1997 to 1998. 13. A perusal of the entire evidence shows that the oral testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence only show that both firms had business transactions. However, the above materials do not clinch the issue whether Ext.A1 was executed only as a security. Apart from the interested testimony of DW1, there is no other evidence to link Ext.A1, with the evidence let in. It is also pertinent to note that Ext.A1 admittedly was not executed on a blank signed paper issued by the defendants. It was admitted by the defendants that Ext.A1 was executed in the form of an agreement for sale and the title deed was delivered. Naturally, it does not stand to reason as to why the document in the nature of an agreement for sale of the property belonging to the defendants should be executed as a security for future business transaction. 14. It is also unanswered as to why Ext.A1 entered in the year 1999, later extended up to 2001, was not terminated, if it was only a security. This assumes significance in the background that the title deed of the defendants was also handed over to the plaintiff. Even after the business was stopped in 2001, defendants did not care to get back the title deed and to cancel Ext.A1. The position remained so till the suit was instituted in the year 2004. 15. The plaintiff has a specific case that on 28.02.1998, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff by way of cheque dated 04.03.1998. In evidence, PW1 has admitted that the amount was collected through his account. He has even given the number of the cheque that was issued by the defendant. 15. The plaintiff has a specific case that on 28.02.1998, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff by way of cheque dated 04.03.1998. In evidence, PW1 has admitted that the amount was collected through his account. He has even given the number of the cheque that was issued by the defendant. No attempt was made by the defendants to prove that no such transaction had taken place especially when such an evidence alone could have demolished the entire case of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the very fact that defendants had given a cheque for s.4,00,000/- on 28.02.1998 cuts at the root of the plea that Ext.A1 was executed only as a security for a business transaction. 16. It is also pertinent to note that though the plaintiff had deposed that huge amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was paid as advance on 29.10.1997, there was no specific cross examination on that. No attempt was made to challenge the source of such payment, or to prove that the amount had not gone from the account of plaintiff or that it had not reached account of the defendant. This assumes significance since accounts of both sides were on record, though the plaintiff was not asked whether he was holding other bank accounts other than available on record. Had been it disproved, it could have demolished the entire case of the plaintiff. 17. An evaluation of the entire evidence show that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving the plaint transaction. It is also proved that Ext.A1 was an agreement for sale on receipt of advance of Rs.7,50,000/- and the return of Rs.4,00,000/- also stand proved. Hence, finding of the court below to the above extent is liable to be sustained. 18. It is pertinent to note that, admitted case of the plaintiff was that a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- remained to be unpaid. He has claimed Rs.7,22,750/- which includes 18% interest on the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from 28.02.1998, till the date of institution of the suit. A perusal of Ext.A1 shows that there was no undertaking to pay 18% interest. It only shows that he had agreed to return the money with reasonable interest. The reasonable interest has not been mentioned anywhere. No evidence was let in to show that there was an agreement to pay 18% interest. A perusal of Ext.A1 shows that there was no undertaking to pay 18% interest. It only shows that he had agreed to return the money with reasonable interest. The reasonable interest has not been mentioned anywhere. No evidence was let in to show that there was an agreement to pay 18% interest. The evidence also shows that it was only an individual transaction and not a commercial transaction. Hence, interest @18% appear to be on the higher side. Interest @12% from 28.02.1998 till the date of suit appears to be reasonable. The judgment and decree of the court below is liable to be modified to the above extent. Point answered. 19. In the light of the findings above, the judgment and decree of the court below to the extent of casting liability on the defendants is liable to be sustained. However, the portion of decree to the extent of granting 18% interest on the principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from 28.02.1998 till the date of suit is liable to be modified. The plaintiff will be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with 12% interest on the principal amount from 28.02.1998 till the date of suit and thereafter @6% till realization. The Court has not granted any charge over the property and in the absence of any appeal or cross objection, we are not inclined to grant such a relief. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While confirming the judgment and decree holding Ext.A1 to be a genuine document, judgment and decree to the extent of granting 18% interest is modified. Plaintiff will be entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- with 12% interest from 28.02.1998 till the date of suit and thereafter @6%, till realization. No costs in appeal. This appeal is allowed in part as above.