JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Sec. 96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the XXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.5257/2013 dtd. 15/9/2016 for partly decreeing the suit. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and respondents. 3. The appellant was plaintiff and respondents were defendants before the Trial Court. The rank of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money for Rs.2, 20, 000.00 with 18% interest p.a. from the defendants. It is alleged that the plaintiff and one Late. Narasinga Rao- the husband of the defendant No.1 and father of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were working together in Graphite India Limited, Bangalore and they were family friends. The deceased-Narasinga Rao approached the plaintiff for financial help for Rs.1, 80, 000.00 for family necessity to meet education expenses of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Accordingly, he paid Rs.1, 80, 000.00 by cash. Narasinga Rao issued two cheques for Rs.30, 000.00 on 12/4/2006 and another cheque dtd. 10/6/2006 for Rs.1, 50, 000.00 drawn on National Co- operative Bank Limited and executed the receipt on 10/6/2006. Defendant No.1 signed as a witness. The said Narasinga Rao assured to pay the interest @ 2 1/2% per annum and payable within one year. Subsequently the Narasinga Rao was expired. During the lifetime of Narasinga Rao, he requested the plaintiff not to present the cheque and will pay the money after receipt of provident fund and gratuity amount. Subsequent to the death of Narasinga Rao, the plaintiff requested the defendants for repayment of the said amount and they assured to clear the same. He further contended that the plaintiff also cleared various loans borrowed by the deceased by paying Rs.15, 500.00 to Sri Thyagarajanagara credit Co-operative Society and another amount of Rs.15, 500.00 by another colleague Krishnappa. The plaintiff also paid Rs.25, 000.00 to Pavamana Credit Co-operative Society Limited and remaining amount of Rs.25, 000.00 paid by another relative Manjunatha. The defendant agreed to pay the amount by installment and they paid Rs.500.00 on 2/1/2009 and 1/5/2009. They also issued 10 post dated cheques for Rs.500.00 each and 9 cheques have been honoured and one cheque returned unpaid. The defendant agreed to pay the amount by installment and they paid Rs.500.00 on 2/1/2009 and 1/5/2009. They also issued 10 post dated cheques for Rs.500.00 each and 9 cheques have been honoured and one cheque returned unpaid. The defendants are due payable for a sum of Rs.2, 20, 000.00 but they have not responded and hence, the plaintiff has filed a suit. 5. The defendants appeared in pursuance of the summons and filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. They have not received any estate from Narasinga Rao and they also denied an ailment of Rs.1, 80, 000.00 loan by the Narasinga Rao and there was no need to borrow money and also denied the issuance of cheque by the Narasinga Rao and contended that Narasinga Rao was died by consuming poison. The defendants have no source of income. The cheques were taken by the plaintiff by force. No amount was paid by the defendants and further denying all the averments and contended that the suit was barred by limitation and hence, prayed for dismissing the suit. 6. Based upon the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following six issues: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that deceased Narasinga Rao has availed financial help of Rs.30, 000.00 in March 2006 and Rs.1, 50, 000.00 in June 2006 for family necessity and educational expenses agreeing to repay the same within a year with interest of 2.5% per month? 2. Whether he further proves that after the death of Narsinga Rao in May 2007 his LRs defendant No.1 to 3 who succeeded to his estate have failed to repay the amount inspite of request demands? 3. Whether he further proves, he is entitled for Rs.2, 20, 000.00 with interest of 18% per annum? 4. Whether suit is barred by time? 5. Whether suit suffers from mis-joinder of loans and cause of action? 6. What order or decree? 7. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents and also examined PW.2 and marked Exs.P.12 to P.15 and one more witness PW.3 and marked Exs.P.16 to P.18. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.1 examined as DW.1 and got marked 3 documents. 6. What order or decree? 7. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents and also examined PW.2 and marked Exs.P.12 to P.15 and one more witness PW.3 and marked Exs.P.16 to P.18. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.1 examined as DW.1 and got marked 3 documents. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court answered issue No.1 in the Negative, Issue No.2 in the Affirmative, Issue Nos.3 and 4 in the partly affirmative, Issue No.5 in the affirmative and finally partly decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff entitled for recovery of Rs.35, 000.00 with 12% interest within 2 months. Being not satisfied with the partly decreeing the suit, the plaintiff is before this court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the Trial Court committed error in partly allowing the suit. Even though the plaintiff was proved the case, the Narasinga Rao was died in May 2007 and subsequently, the defendants have made payments and undertaken to pay the said loan amount. PW.1 categorically stated that the payment has been made by the defendants for Rs.500.00 each. The plaintiff has paid Rs.1, 80, 000.00 for family necessity and also cleared the loan of the Narasinga Rao in the Co-operative Banks. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 corroborates with the evidence of PW.1. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has taken contention that the suit filed in the year 2013. The defendants have not paid any amount as stated at paragraph No.9 of the plaint. The suit is required to file within three years, but it is barred by limitation. The amount paid by the plaintiff by clearing the debt at two co-operative Banks has been decreed by the Trial Court which call for no interference. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal. 10. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the points that arise for my consideration are: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the deceased Narasinga Rao borrowed loan of Rs.1, 80, 000.00 and to discharge the loan, he has issued the cheques? 2) Whether the defendants though succeeded the estate of Narasinga Rao, but failed to repay the loan? 3) Whether the plaintiff entitled for recovery of Rs.2, 20, 000.00 from the defendants? 4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 2) Whether the defendants though succeeded the estate of Narasinga Rao, but failed to repay the loan? 3) Whether the plaintiff entitled for recovery of Rs.2, 20, 000.00 from the defendants? 4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 5) Whether the judgment of the Trial Court rejecting the claim of the plaintiff calls for interference? 11. The plaintiff to prove his case, he himself examined as PW.1 and he has examined two more witnesses i.e., PWs.2 and 3. He has reiterated the averments made in the plaint in his evidence. The defendants though admitted the relationship but admits only issuance of 10 cheques for Rs.500.00 each and it honoring the same and contended that absolutely there is no admission in respect of borrowing Rs.1, 80, 000.00 by Narasinga Rao and also denied the payment made for Rs.500.00 on 2/1/2009 and 1/5/2009. It is contended by the defendants that the said amount was shown as receipt in order to over come the point of limitation. To corroborate the evidence of PW.1, he has got marked Ex.P.1-cheque dtd. 12/4/2006 for Rs.30, 000.00; Ex.P.2 is a receipt dtd. 10/6/2006 for Rs.1, 50, 000.00 where the defendant No.1 signed as witness; Ex.P.3 is cheque dtd. 10/6/2006 issued by the Narasinga Rao along with Ex.P.2-receipt, Ex.P.3 has been executed. Ex.P.4 is the amount paid by plaintiff to the Thyagarajanagara Credit Co-operative Society Limited for Rs.15, 500.00 and Ex.P.5 is certificate issued by the said Bank as the plaintiff cleared the loan of the Narasinga Rao. These documents are not in dispute. Ex.P.6-letter of Pavamana Credit Co-operative Society Limited for having paid Rs.25, 000.00 by the plaintiff to the Bank as a guarantor. Ex.P.7 is challan. These documents are also not in dispute. Ex.P.8 is the copy of the passbook of plaintiff. Ex.P.9 is the copy of the complaint given to the Thyagarajanagara police by the plaintiff against the defendants and the Police issued endorsement as per Ex.P.11 to approach the civil court. These documents goes to show that the plaintiff paid Rs.1, 80, 000.00 to the Narasinga Rao and also cleared the loan of the Narasinga Rao in both the Co-operative Societies. 12. PW.2-Krishnappa who is a Deputy Officer of Graphite India Limited, Bengaluru has deposed that after the death of Narasinga Rao, the wife-defendant No.1 received Rs.3, 37, 816.00 as death benefit. 12. PW.2-Krishnappa who is a Deputy Officer of Graphite India Limited, Bengaluru has deposed that after the death of Narasinga Rao, the wife-defendant No.1 received Rs.3, 37, 816.00 as death benefit. Ex.P.12 is a record for payment of death benefit where the gratuity amount of Rs.2, 61, 176.00 paid by cheque and death claim benefit of insurance policy for Rs.62, 000.00 also paid by cheque. Ex.P.13 is the Data entry copy; Ex.P.14 is the letter from Graphite India Limited addressed to defendant No.1 regarding settlement of Gratuity claim. These documents were not seriously disputed by the defendants except admitted some amount of Rs.30, 000.00 has been deducted by the employer. A lengthy cross examination has been made but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2. 13. PW.3-Syed Nasrulla, the Enforcement Officer of EPF also deposed that an amount of Rs.1, 01, 021.00 paid to the Anusuya towards the P.F. of the deceased Narasinga Rao and also pension was sanctioned to the wife and children and an account was also opened. He has got marked Exs.P.16, 17 and 18, the pension order and statement of the witnesses. During the cross examination, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence. On the other hand, the defendants by denying Rs.1, 80, 000.00 payable to the plaintiff and contended that out of service benefit, PW.2 obtained the cheque for Rs.1, 45, 000.00 dtd. 24/8/2007 and remaining amount has been withdrawn from his mother-in-law and she has also cleared the loan of Narasinga Rao in the Society. In support of the contention, Exs.D1 to D3 were marked during the cross examination of PW.3 There was lengthy cross examination made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 14. On considering the entire evidence on record, admittedly except Exs.P2 ad P.3 for payment of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 and Ex.P.1 Rs.30, 000.00 paid by the plaintiff by cheque dtd. 12/4/2006 and 10/6/2006. For the purpose of recovering the said amount, the plaintiff neither presented the cheque before the Bank for the purpose of recovery or filed any suit within three years payable by the deceased Narasinga Rao within one year. Admittedly, the said Narasinga Rao died in July 2007 but suit was filed in the year 2013 which is barred by limitation. For the purpose of recovering the said amount, the plaintiff neither presented the cheque before the Bank for the purpose of recovery or filed any suit within three years payable by the deceased Narasinga Rao within one year. Admittedly, the said Narasinga Rao died in July 2007 but suit was filed in the year 2013 which is barred by limitation. Though, Rs.15, 500.00 paid by the plaintiff to the Co-operative Society on 23/9/2008 and Rs.25, 000.00 on 29/8/2008 and he has taken 10 cheques for Rs.500.00 each and all the cheques were cleared by the defendants. Though he has taken specific contention that Rs.500.00 paid to the plaintiff by the defendants in respect of old due, but there is no document produced in this regard. Except proving the recovery of money in respect of amount directly paid to the Society and to discharge the said loan, the defendants issued 10 cheques which were honored till 2011 and finally one cheque was dishonoured and for remaining amount, there is no cheque received by the plaintiff in respect of old loan payable by the Narasinga Rao as per Exs.P.1 and P.3 which was dtd. 12/4/2006 and 10/6/2006. Of course, defendant No.1 was the signatory to Ex.P.2 as witness, but the said amount payable by the deceased-Narasinga Rao, even if the respondents succeeded the estate of the deceased Narasinga Rao, the suit is required to be filed within three years, but suit was filed almost after 6 years. Therefore, for recovery of Rs.1, 80, 000.00, the suit was barred by limitation and the amount of Rs.40, 500.00 and Rs.5, 500.00 has already been paid by the defendants by cheques and remaining amount of Rs.35, 000.00 is required to be payable by the defendants. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for Rs.1, 80, 000.00 is barred by limitation and is entitled for Rs.35, 000.00. The Trial Court considering the evidence on record, rightly decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.35, 000.00 together with 12% interest per annum. In my considered view, the judgment of the Trial Court do not call for interference. Accordingly, answered above all the points against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Therefore, the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant deserves to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to the costs.