JUDGMENT 1. The Appeal, under Sec. 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the decree and Judgment dtd. 31/12/2009 in O.S.No.771 of 2008 passed by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur (for short, 'trial court'). Respondent is the plaintiff in the suit, who filed the suit in O.S.No.771 of 2008 seeking recovery of Rs.9, 51, 242.00 with interest and costs from the defendants towards Khata dealings between them. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the present Appeal, in a nutshell, are as under: (a) The plaintiff firm has been involved in the cotton trade, regularly supplying cotton to the 1st defendant's firm on a credit basis. The 1st defendant firm engages in substantial business activities with significant turnovers. All the partners in both firms actively participate in the business transactions. The 1st defendant firm opened a Khata with the plaintiff firm, they purchased cotton on credit basis, with two separate bills: Bill No.7, dt.8/12/2006 amounting to Rs.5, 93, 433.00 and bill No.8, dt.13/2/2007 amounting to Rs.5, 36, 628.00. Both parties agreed that these amounts would carry the interest rate @ 24% per annum accruing the bills date until the date of payment. The Khata of the 1st defendant firm was entered in the plaintiff firm's account books, which are maintained in the regular course of their business. After opening the Khata of 1st defendant firm, it made two payments, one of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 on 18/1/2007 and another of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 on 10/5/2007 through cheque payment. (b) In 2007, one of the partners in the 1st defendant firm, Chittiprolu Suryanarayana, died intestate in 2007, leaving behind his wife Nagabhayamma and his sons Jagan Mohan Rao and Srinivasa Rao, as his legal heirs. After his death, the 1st defendant firm continued to operate with the remaining partners, specifically defendants 3 to 7, and they were responsible for the 1st defendant's firm's debt. The plaintiff made repeated attempts to collect the outstanding debt from the defendants, but the defendants postponed on one pretext or another. After his death, the 1st defendant firm continued to operate with the remaining partners, specifically defendants 3 to 7, and they were responsible for the 1st defendant's firm's debt. The plaintiff made repeated attempts to collect the outstanding debt from the defendants, but the defendants postponed on one pretext or another. Additionally, the 1st defendant borrowed Rs.3, 75, 000.00 from the plaintiff on 19/8/2006 by way of hand loan, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% p.a., and to that effect a receipt dt.19/8/2006 was issued by one of the partners of the 1st defendant's firm, Jagan Mohan Rao to confirm the loan amount. Despite this, the defendants only made a part payment of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 on 23/1/2007 towards settling the personal loan debt. 4. Defendants 3 to 7 have adopted the 2nd defendant's written statement, in which, they asserted that 1st defendant is a registered firm. Initially, the firm was formed by partners, Late Chittiprolu Suryanarayana and his sons Late Jagan Mohan Rao and Srinivasa Rao along with the 2nd defendant for the benefit of their joint family. After the demise of Chittiprolu Suryanarayana, the responsibility for all business and financial transactions fell on his elder son, C.Jagan Mohan Rao. Subsequently, he died. During their lifetimes, the entire amount owed as per the Khata agreement was paid by them to the plaintiff, albeit at a higher interest rate. Upon Jagan Mohan Rao's passing, the plaintiff visited the defendants' residence and acknowledged the receipt of the outstanding amount. At that time, there was an understanding that the matter had been settled through negotiations between the elders. The plaintiff then collected substantial sums from the 2nd defendant, indicating that he would close the Khata and provide a receipt for a full and final settlement. However, the plaintiff failed to issue the promised receipt and continued to postpone doing so. The defendants argue that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is exorbitant and unfair. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether discharge pleaded by the defendant is true? (2) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is excessive? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claimed as prayed for? (4) To what relief? 6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined, and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. (2) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is excessive? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claimed as prayed for? (4) To what relief? 6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined, and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined, and no documents were marked. 7. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs against defendants 1 and 2 and against the estate of Jagan Mohan Rao of 1st defendant firm, which is in the hands of defendants 3 to 7 for Rs.9, 51, 242.00 with interest @ 6% on the principal amount of Rs.6, 30, 055.00 from the date of suit till the date of realization. 8. Sri Md. Saleem learned counsel representing the appellants/ defendants put forth an argument that the trial Court accepted the documents, i.e., Exs.A.1 to A.10 relied upon by the plaintiff firm, even though none of the partners of the 1st defendant firm had signed these documents regarding Khata transaction; the trial Court Judgment based solely on the ground that the 1st defendant did not dispute the part payment made by way of cheque either in the written statement or in the evidence; the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit @ 24% p.a., from the date of bill along with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a., on the principal amount from the date of suit till the date of realization. 9. Per contra, Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty learned counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff, contends that the trial Court correctly appreciated the case facts and came to a correct conclusion. The reasons given by the trial Court do not want any modification. 10. Concerning the pleadings in the suit and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1) Is the Trial Court justified in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for? 2) Is the pre-lite interest awarded by the trial Court @ 24% per annum yearly rests just and reasonable? 3) Is the Judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference? POINT NOs.1 to 3: 11. 2) Is the pre-lite interest awarded by the trial Court @ 24% per annum yearly rests just and reasonable? 3) Is the Judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference? POINT NOs.1 to 3: 11. According to the 2nd defendant's written statement, there is no outstanding debt between the plaintiff firm and the defendants; they contended that the claim was settled during the lifetime of one of the partners and Managing Partner of the 1st defendant firm. It is important to note that the 1st defendant's firm consists of active partners, who are all members of the same family. The 2nd defendant, who was examined as DW.1, asserts that he is a sleeping partner of the 1st defendant firm, which his father and brothers were actively involved in the firm's operation; during their lifetime, they conducted transactions with the plaintiff firm and fully discharged the debt. On the other hand, the proprietor of the plaintiff firm, K.Sreenivasa Rao, who testified as PW.1 that the 1st defendant firm and its partners had established a running Khata with the plaintiff. They had purchased cotton on credit under a bill dated December 8, 2006, for a total of Rs.5, 93, 433.00, and under another bill dated February 13, 2007, for Rs.5, 36, 628.00. The agreement included a provision for repaying the amount with interest at a rate of 24% per annum, calculated from the date of the bill until the date of full payment. To substantiate their case, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A.3. 12. It is elicited in PW.1's cross-examination that the bills relating to Ex.A.3 were held during the lifetime of Satyanarayana and Jagan Mohan Rao. It is suggested to PW.1 in the cross-examination that such transactions were held by defendants 1 and 2, but according to them, defendants 3 to 7 were not liable to pay the debts. 13. The plaintiff contends that the data of 1st defendant firm, entered in the plaintiff's firm account book, is being maintained in the regular course of the business. 13. The plaintiff contends that the data of 1st defendant firm, entered in the plaintiff's firm account book, is being maintained in the regular course of the business. To establish the said fact, the plaintiff's firm relied on Ex.A.4 (state of account of 1st defendant's firm maintained in the accounts book of plaintiff firm, dt.12/10/2008), Ex.A.5 (ledger book for the year 2006-07 at page No.31), Ex.A.6 (ledger book for the year 2007-08 relating to page No.37), Ex.A.7 (Day book for the year 2007-08 relating to page No.4), Ex.A.8 (ledger book for the year 2008-09 relating to page No.37), Ex.A.9 (day book for the year 2006-07 relating to page No.42) and Ex.A.10 (sales register for the year 2006-07 relating to page No.15). The defendants did not dispute case of the plaintiff. It is also the plaintiff's case that after opening the khata of 1st defendant firm, it made two payments, i.e., Rs.3, 00, 000.00 on 18/1/2007 and Rs.2, 00, 000.00 on 10/5/2007 by way of cheque towards part payments. The material placed by the plaintiff clearly shows that the said payments were deducted. 14. It is not the defendants' case that the said payments were not deducted from the outstanding amount. The plaintiff's case that one of the partners, namely Chittiprolu Suryanarayana, died as intestate in the year 2007, leaving behind his wife, Nagabhayamma and his sons, Jagan Mohan Rao and Suryanarayana, as his legal heirs, upon whom, the estate was devolved, is not disputed. 15. It is the DW.1's version that the firm continued with the remaining partners, i.e., defendants 3 to 7, who are the legal heirs of late Suryanarayana. It is also the plaintiff's specific case that the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3, 75, 000.00 from the plaintiff by way of a hand loan, agreeing to repay the same with interest and to that effect, a receipt was issued by one of the sleeping deceased partner namely Jagan Mohan Rao of 1st defendant firm, is not disputed. 16. As seen from the defendants' contest, they are not disputing the plaintiff's case regarding purchasing the cotton on a credit basis and taking a hand loan. Once the defendants have not disputed the said plaintiff's case and they have pleaded that the said debts were discharged, they must establish the plea of discharge. 17. 16. As seen from the defendants' contest, they are not disputing the plaintiff's case regarding purchasing the cotton on a credit basis and taking a hand loan. Once the defendants have not disputed the said plaintiff's case and they have pleaded that the said debts were discharged, they must establish the plea of discharge. 17. Though the plaintiff has taken a plea regarding the hand loan transaction with the defendants, no claim is made in the suit about the same and the plaintiff stated that it would file a separate suit against the defendants. The evidence adduced regarding the hand loan transaction need not be considered. 18. The trial Court observed that the part payments made by the 1st defendant firm under two cheques for Rs.5, 00, 000.00 were not denied by the defendants either in the written statement or in the DW.1's evidence. The defendants have also not disputed the plaintiff's case that the ledger books and invoices from the relevant pages covered under Exs.A.3 to A.9 show that 1st defendant firm opened khata with the plaintiff firm and purchased the cotton and made part payment of Rs.5, 00, 000.00. On the other hand, the defendants contend that though they do not know the payments made by 1st defendant under two cheques in favour of the plaintiff, he sold the property, which was attached by the plaintiff in the suit and executed a registered sale deed by all the defendants. The trial Court observed that the sale deed does not contain a recital that the 2nd defendant is only a sleeping partner. Except for the self-serving testimony of DW.1 (C.Srinivasa Rao, 2nd defendant), there is no corroborative evidence on behalf of the defendants to prove their contention of discharge. The defendants have not explained the mode of payments towards that debt. Had the defendants discharged the debt, at least they would be able to furnish the payment details. Without giving those details, accepting the defendants' contention about the plea of discharge is difficult. 19. It is settled law that the best evidence in the case is the admission of the opposite party. Admissions are valuable evidence because when a party himself admits to being true, it may be reasonably presumed to be so until the presumption is rebutted. The fact admitted must be taken to be established. 19. It is settled law that the best evidence in the case is the admission of the opposite party. Admissions are valuable evidence because when a party himself admits to being true, it may be reasonably presumed to be so until the presumption is rebutted. The fact admitted must be taken to be established. The effect of admission is merely to shift the onus of disproving on the party, making them unless a plea of estoppels can be successfully invoked. It is well settled that admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, though not conclusive, is a decisive matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. There cannot be better evidence than one's admission. 20. Based on the DW.1's testimony, it is evident that after the passing of his father and brother, he continued to engage in business activities with other family members. The evidence presented during the legal proceedings suggests that both the Managing Partner and one of the partners of the 1st defendant firm had conducted business transactions and procured cotton from the plaintiff during their lifetimes. As a result of this evidence, the trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the individuals acting on behalf of the family and in their personal capacities, including both the partners and the firm itself, are collectively responsible for settling the outstanding debt. In essence, the trial Court held that both the family members involved in the business and the business entity itself are liable to repay the debt owed. 21. It is not the case of defendants 3 to 7 that after the death of the Managing partner and one of the partners, they made payments. They have taken a specific plea in the written statement that Khata debt was paid by defendants 1 and 2 during their lifetime. Except taking bare pleas that the defendants 1 and 2 have discharged the debt payable to the plaintiff, no evidence is placed to substantiate the contention. Once the defendants have not disputed the credit transactions as pleaded by the plaintiff firm, they must establish the plea of discharge. The trial Court has rightly placed the burden upon the defendants to establish the plea of discharge. The defendants have failed to establish the plea of discharge. The burden of proving discharge heavily rests upon them and in their attempts, they have singularly failed. The trial Court has rightly placed the burden upon the defendants to establish the plea of discharge. The defendants have failed to establish the plea of discharge. The burden of proving discharge heavily rests upon them and in their attempts, they have singularly failed. As both parties have let in evidence and as plaintiff's evidence is more worthy of belief and the trial Court rightly didn't accept the defendants' plea of discharge. 22. The defendants have taken a specific plea in the written statement that the interest payable to the plaintiff is usurious. The plaintiff has not placed any evidence justifying claiming interest @ 24% per annum. The trial Court has not given any specific finding about the interest entitlement @ 24% per annum. 23. In a decision reported in M. Rajeswar Rao and Others V. Chitluri Satyam (died) & others.;2013 SCC OnLine AP 809 and another decision reported in Ms Surisetty Nookaratnam V. Saragadam Gowri Ramalakshmi and another, 2013 SCC OnLine AP 369 the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh has reduced the pre-lite interest from 24% to 12% per annum and from 18% to 12% per annum, respectively, by relying on the judgments of Hon'ble apex Court in Mahesh Chandra Bansal V. Krishna Swaroop., (1997) 10 SCC 681 and in DDA V. Joginer S.Monga., (2004) 2 SCC 297 In ascertaining the interest rate, the Courts of Law can take judicial notice of inflation and the fall in bank lending rate of interest. A reading of the precedents suggests that the steep fall in the Bank Lending interest rate is the main reason for reducing the pre-lite interest from 24. %. This Court views that if the interest rate is unconscionable and usurious, the Court has the power to interfere. By following the case law referred, this Court is inclined to reduce the interest rate from 24% to 18% per annum from the date of the suit transaction till the date of filing of the suit. 24. Given the above facts and circumstances, this Court views that the plaintiff is not entitled to a rate of interest at 24% per annum. However, he is entitled to a simple rate of interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit transaction till the date of filing of the suit. 24. Given the above facts and circumstances, this Court views that the plaintiff is not entitled to a rate of interest at 24% per annum. However, he is entitled to a simple rate of interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit transaction till the date of filing of the suit. The findings arrived at by the trial Court on the appreciation of evidence in this case, is therefore, correct and does not call for interference, except the rate of interest as indicated above. Accordingly, the points are answered. 25. For the reasons stated above, the Appeal is allowed in part by modifying the interest from 24% to a simple rate of interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount from the date of the suit transaction till the date of filing of the suit. Out of the decree amount awarded, the payment of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 made on 18/1/2007 and Rs.2, 00, 000.00 made on 10/5/2007 shall be deducted. The rest of the Judgment holds good. Both parties shall bear their costs. 26. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal shall stand closed.