JUDGMENT : Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J. 1. The appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant in O.S.No.78 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. 2. Both the parties in the appeal hereinafter referred to as the parties that were referred before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of suit claim of Rs.61,830/- with subsequent interest thereon. 4. In a nutshell, the brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- The plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.45,000/- to the defendant by way of Demand Draft No.60600 dated 31.03.1987 of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bazar Branch, Eluru, drawn in favour of the defendant and handed over the same to the defendant and the defendant promised to repay the aforesaid amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. But the defendant failed to repay the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a Legal Notice dated 11.10.1989 to the defendant. 5. The defendant issued a reply notice with false allegations that the defendant is not entitled the benefits of Agricultural Debt Relief Acts and he is a businessman (Income Tax Assesse) and that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the suit debt along with subsequent interest and with costs. 6. The brief averments of the written statement, filed by the defendant, are as follows:- 7. The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.45,000/- dated 31.03.1987 with interest at the rate of 12½% per annum, under a Demand Draft No.60600 from the husband of the plaintiff but not from the plaintiff and that he paid away the said amount along with interest, in total, an amount of Rs.48,375/-, to the husband of the plaintiff under a receipt dated 31.08.1987. He further pleaded that he does not know the plaintiff until receipt of the Registered Legal Notice and he issued a reply notice with correct facts and the husband of the plaintiff got filed the suit through the plaintiff, as the disputes arose between him and the husband of the plaintiff, in connection with the participation in Eluru Municipal Market Auction for the year 1988-89 and also he is not an Income Tax Assesse. The defendant entitled to claim the benefits of Act IV of 1938 and he pray Court to dismiss the suit. 8. The defendant entitled to claim the benefits of Act IV of 1938 and he pray Court to dismiss the suit. 8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues are for trial: (1) Whether the amount covered by D.D.No.60600 for Rs.45,000/- was lent by plaintiff’s husband? (2) Whether the discharge pleaded by defendant is true and binding on the plaintiff? (3) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined 5 witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 6 and marked as Ex.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the defendant, D.WS.1 to 3 were marked and got exhibited Ex.B1. During the cross examination of P.W.2, Exs.X1 and X2, thorough P.W.3, Exs.X3 to X6 and through P.W.5, Exs.X7 to X19 documents were marked. 10. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant therein preferred the present appeal. 11. Heard Sri Srikanth, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Y. V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Srinivasa Basava, learned counsel representing on behalf of Smt. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the respondent. 12. Now, the point for determination is: (1) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit? POINT:- 13. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant requested the plaintiff to lend an amount of Rs.45,000/-. On considering the request made by the defendant, the plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.45,000/- to the defendant under a Demand Draft No.60600 dated 31.03.1987, drawn on District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bazar Branch, Eluru. It is the specific case of the defendant that he borrowed the said amount from the husband of the plaintiff, but not from the plaintiff. 14. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the Registration Extract of the Sale Deed executed by P.W1. Ex.A2 is the Ryotvari Pass Book issued to the Plaintiff by the Tahsildar, Eluru, in favour of P.W1. Ex.A3 is the office copy of Legal Notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 11.10.1989. Ex.A4 is reply notice issued by the defendant to the plaintiff advocate. Ex.A1 is the Registration Extract of the Sale Deed executed by P.W1. Ex.A2 is the Ryotvari Pass Book issued to the Plaintiff by the Tahsildar, Eluru, in favour of P.W1. Ex.A3 is the office copy of Legal Notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 11.10.1989. Ex.A4 is reply notice issued by the defendant to the plaintiff advocate. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of the counterfoil of Demand Draft in the name of the defendant for an amount of Rs.45,000/-. 15. P.W1 is the plaintiff in the suit. The evidence of P.W1 supports the case of the plaintiff. Exs.A1 and A2 goes to show that the plaintiff is having capacity to lend money to the defendant. Exs.A3 and A4 clearly goes to show that after borrowing money by the defendant, the defendant did not discharge the said debt and that the plaintiff issued a Legal Notice under Ex.A3 and the defendant issued a reply notice under Ex.A4 to the counsel for plaintiff. The fact remains that even after receipt of Legal Notice the defendant failed to discharge the suit debt. To discharge her burden the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W3. 16. P.W3 is the Manager of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bazar Branch, Eluru. He categorically deposed in his evidence that the plaintiff obtained the Demand Draft No.60600 for an amount of Rs.45,000/- in favour of the defendant on 31.03.1987, by way of applying for the same and he identified the original challan signed by the plaintiff and the same was marked as Ex.X3. The evidence of P.W3 clearly goes to show that the plaintiff borowed an amount of Rs.45,000/- vide Demand Draft No.60600 in favour of the defendant. The evidence of P.W1 goes to show that the plaintiff handed over the said Demand Draft to the defendant in view of the request made by the defendant to lend money of Rs.45,000/- to the defendant. 17. The evidence of P.W1 further goes to show that the signature of the plaintiff was there on the reverse of Demand Draft challan. P.W3 identified the Ex.A5 is the duplicate counterfoil of the challan issued by the Bank Manager. The evidence of P.W3 coupled with Ex.A5 and Ex.X3, clinchingly proves that the plaintiff obtained the Demand Draft in question. It was pleaded by the defendant that in convenience with the Bank Authorities the plaintiff fabricated the Demand Draft. P.W3 identified the Ex.A5 is the duplicate counterfoil of the challan issued by the Bank Manager. The evidence of P.W3 coupled with Ex.A5 and Ex.X3, clinchingly proves that the plaintiff obtained the Demand Draft in question. It was pleaded by the defendant that in convenience with the Bank Authorities the plaintiff fabricated the Demand Draft. But no such evidence is placed by the defendant to show that with the assistance of Bank Officials, the plaintiff fabricated the Ex.A5 and Ex.X3. Therefore, in the absence of any such material, it is not safe to come to conclusion that the plaintiff fabricated the Ex.A5 and Ex.X3 in collusion with the Bank Officials. 18. It is the case of the appellant that the plaintiff is not having any capacity to lend the money i.e., Rs.45,000/- to the defendant. In order to prove the capacity of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on Exs.A1 and A2. As stated supra, Exs.A1 and A2 clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is having sufficient capacity to lend money to the defendant. To discharge her burden, the plaintiff also relied on the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 is none other than the brother of the plaintiff. The evidence of P.W.2 also clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is having sufficient capacity to lend money. Furthermore, in Ex.A4 reply notice, said to have been issued by the defendant, there is no whisper that the plaintiff herein is not having sufficient capacity to lend that much amount i.e., Rs.45,000/- to the defendant. Another important aspect is that there is also no whisper in the written statement that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend that much amount i.e., Rs.45,000/-. It is well settled that without any pleading, the oral contention of the defendant, that the plaintiff is not having sufficient capacity to lend that much amount, which was taken during the course of trial, that too, at the stage of cross examination of P.W.1, cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, in the absence of any such plea in the written statement that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend money, now it is not open to the defendant to contend that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend that much money for the first time during the course of the trial. 19. Therefore, in the absence of any such plea in the written statement that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend money, now it is not open to the defendant to contend that the plaintiff is not having capacity to lend that much money for the first time during the course of the trial. 19. Another important contention taken by defendant is that, he discharged the said amount of Rs.45,000/- along with interest to the husband of the plaintiff i.e., on 31.08.1987, under Ex.B1 receipt in the presence of D.Ws.2 and 3. P.W5 who is none other than the husband of the plaintiff specifically denied about the alleged lending of Rs.45,000/- by him to the defendant. Therefore, the burden is on the defendant to prove that he borrowed an amount of Rs.45,000/- from the husband of the plaintiff, but not from the plaintiff and he discharged the said debt to the plaintiff’s husband. The defendant relied on the evidence on D.Ws.2 and 3, admittedly the signatures of D.Ws.2 and 3 are not there on Ex.B1 alleged receipt, to show their presence at the time of passing of Ex.B1 receipt. There is no mention in Ex.A4 reply notice, by the defendant, about the alleged passing of Ex.B1 receipt. Therefore, non-mentioning of alleged receipt of Ex.B1 and the said particulars in Ex.A4 reply notice, goes to show that the said receipt Ex.B1 is not at all genuine one and not relates to the suit transaction. Furthermore, Ex.B1 goes to show that the defendant not obtained the signatures of the husband of the plaintiff on it by affixing any revenue stamp. Therefore, the alleged plea taken by the appellant/defendant that he discharged the said amount to the plaintiff under Ex.B1 receipt cannot be proved by the appellant before the trial Court. 20. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the plaintiff lent an amount of Rs.45,000/-, under a Demand Draft bearing No.60600 dated 31.03.1987 and drawn on District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bazar Branch, Eluru, after borrowing the amount, the defendant failed to discharge the said debt and further the plaintiff issued a legal notice under Ex.A3 to the defendant, after receipt of said notice the defendant failed to discharge the said debt and gave reply notice with false contentions. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit debt. 21. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit debt. 21. Learned trial Judge ordered at the rate of 18% interest from the date of suit till the date of Decree. The Law is well settled that the use of word “May” in Section 34 of C.P.C. confers discretion of the Court to “Award” or “not to Award” or “to Award” interest at such rate as deems fit. 22. The trial Court awarded interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of Decree. Admittedly, there is no contract in between the plaintiff and defendant with regard to the rate of interest. 23. It is well settled in a decision reported in DDA vs. Joginder S. Monga (2004) 2 SCC 297 , the Hon’ble Apex Court reduced the post-lite interest from 18% to 9% per annum. In ascertaining the rate of interest, the Courts of Law can take Judicial Notice of both inflation and also fall in bank lending rate of interest. The steep fall in bank lending interest can be considered grounds for reducing the post-lite interest from 24% per annum. This Court views that the interest rate is unconscionable and usurious, the Appellate Court has power to reduce the rate of interest which was granted by the trial Court by following the case law cited above. Hence, this Court is inclined to reduce the rate of interest from 18% to 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of passing of Decree. 24. The findings arrived at by the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence in this case, therefore, correct and do not call for any interference, except the rate of interest as indicated above. 25. In the result, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed, by modifying the Decree and Judgment, dated 01.10.1999, in O.S.No.78 of 1990, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, as the plaintiff is entitled to the interest of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of passing of Decree on principal amount of Rs.45,000/-. The rest of the Judgment of the trial Court holds good. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Both the parties shall bear their own costs in the appeal.