JUDGMENT : K. SUJANA, J. 1. The present City Civil Court Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 23.03.2011 passed in O.S.No.333 of 2006 by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.14,74,929/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of realisation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff was an Engineer and Contractor. The first defendant was a registered partnership firm, with defendant Nos.2 and 3 as managing partners, and defendant Nos.4 to 6 as partners. Due to a long-standing relationship, the second defendant invited the plaintiff to join the firm as an executive partner and invest in security works, with an agreement to share profits. A written agreement was signed on 20-11-1996, under which the firm would hold 75% share and the plaintiff 25% share in works awarded by the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation. The plaintiff initially invested Rs.9,02,462/- between 15-11-1996 and 27-03-1997, and later invested another Rs.9,00,000/-, making a total of Rs.18,02,462/-, which was acknowledged by the defendants. 3. Later, disputes arose during the execution of the work. These were settled through an understanding dated 20.10.2000, under which the defendants agreed to pay Rs.22,50,000/- in four monthly installments. Four promissory notes and post-dated cheques for Rs.5,62,500/- each were issued by the second defendant with 2% interest. However, the first two cheques were dishonoured. After mediation, the second defendant paid Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.4,62,000/- through demand drafts. The plaintiff returned the first promissory note and cheque. 4. The second defendant later requested the plaintiff not to present the remaining cheques and promised to clear dues with 24% interest. On 04.10.2001, Rs.8,50,000/- was paid and adjusted towards pending dues. Despite this, Rs.10,83,875/- remained unpaid. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 26.12.2002 demanding Rs.13,55,445/-. In response, the defendants denied liability. However, a token payment of Rs.1,37,500/- was made on 06.03.2003, adjusted towards interest. Still, Rs.12,59,661/- remained unpaid. 5. Further notices were sent on 26.07.2003 and 10.01.2004. The defendants only paid Rs.5,000/- on 10.11.2003. On 26.08.2004, the second defendant acknowledged the debt and offered Rs.7,00,000/- in full settlement, but failed to pay. The plaintiff rejected the offer and sent another notice on 20.09.2004 for Rs.16,01,825.85. On 16.07.2005, the defendants paid Rs.5,00,000/- through six demand drafts, which was adjusted against interest. The defendants only paid Rs.5,000/- on 10.11.2003. On 26.08.2004, the second defendant acknowledged the debt and offered Rs.7,00,000/- in full settlement, but failed to pay. The plaintiff rejected the offer and sent another notice on 20.09.2004 for Rs.16,01,825.85. On 16.07.2005, the defendants paid Rs.5,00,000/- through six demand drafts, which was adjusted against interest. A protest letter with updated dues of Rs.13,48,285/- as on 31.10.2005 was sent, but the defendants did not respond. The plaintiff then filed the present suit seeking recovery of Rs.14,74,929/- with 18% interest. 6. On the other hand, the defendants filed written statement stating that the plaintiff was only a salaried Site Engineer from January 1997 to December 1999, and never invested any amount. They alleged that he misused signed blank documents to create false records and obtained cheques and promissory notes under coercion. They claimed he wrongfully received Rs.14,12,500/- and failed to return it, despite their demands. A police report was filed on 12.02.2003. They denied all claims and requested dismissal of the suit. 7. In his rejoinder, the plaintiff denied all allegations. He claimed the documents and payments were genuine and denied misuse, fraud, or coercion. He also stated that any arbitration applied only among partners and not to him, and insisted he was entitled to the suit amount. 8. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues. The plaintiff examined three witnesses and marked documents Exs.A1 to A44. The defendants examined one witness and marked Exs.B1 to B4. 9. After considering the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.14,74,929/- with interest on Rs.9,19,625/- at 12% per annum from the date of filing to the date of decree, and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. Aggrieved by the judgment, the defendants filed this appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the present city civil court appeal. 10. Heard Sri Ch. Pushyam Kiran, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vinayaka Swamy, learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment, the defendants filed this appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the present city civil court appeal. 10. Heard Sri Ch. Pushyam Kiran, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vinayaka Swamy, learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court had erred in its appreciation of the role of the respondent stating that he was merely an employee who had offered to work as a Site Engineer on the construction project undertaken by appellant/defendant No.1 and that overlooked vital aspects including alleged manipulation, forgery, and fabrication of documents by the respondent/plaintiff, which were purportedly obtained under coercion and that failed to take into consideration the police complaint filed by the appellant at S.R. Nagar Police Station dated 12.02.2003, which concerned the illegal demands made by the respondent. He further submitted that the trial Court did not appreciate that, under the terms of the partnership deed, appellant No.1 was not empowered to induct outsiders as partners or seek external investment in the firm. Further, Clause 9 of the partnership deed, which mandates that capital contribution be made solely by the appellants, was allegedly ignored by the Court. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was no evidence to substantiate the claims of the respondent, and the trial Court had erroneously held the plaintiff entitled to recover the suit amount. In the alternative, it was argued that no agreed rate of interest had been recorded in any memo between the parties. Despite this, the trial Court had awarded interest at the rate of 24% per annum, which was described as legally untenable and also referred to a calculation memo that allegedly showed that the appellants had already paid Rs.20,60,000/- prior to the filing of the suit, leaving a balance, if any, of only Rs.1,90,000/-. The total payments made, amounting to Rs.29,10,000/-, were claimed to cover the entire settlement amount of Rs.22,50,000/- dated 20.10.2000 and further contended that the respondent had obtained the decree from the Civil Court by misrepresentation and by including an interest component that lacked any contractual or statutory basis. Such a demand, according to the appellants, was unsustainable. Therefore, prayed the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 13. Such a demand, according to the appellants, was unsustainable. Therefore, prayed the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. He stated that the promissory notes and cheques had been executed, although the appellant had alleged that they were obtained under coercion. He contended that, having admitted the documents, the appellant bore the burden of proving coercion, which he failed to do, as no evidence had been produced to support this claim. He further asserted that the plaintiff had been examined as PW.1 and had also presented PWs.2 and 3 to validate the settlement. He explained that notices had been repeatedly issued by the plaintiff to the defendants whenever a portion of the amount was paid. According to him, the defendants had responded to those notices, acknowledging appropriation of interest and the remaining amount towards the principal, without raising objections. He noted that the plaintiff had not received any communication from the defendants specifying the manner of appropriation of funds, whether for interest or principal. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents further referred to Section 60 of the Indian Contracts Act, stating that since the defendant had not indicated the appropriation of payments, the plaintiff was entitled to apply the amounts first towards interest and then towards the principal. Regarding the appellants’ objection to the absence of an agreed rate of interest, he maintained that the instrument itself contained a mention of interest, and that since the defendant had signed the document, both the principal and interest were valid and enforceable and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal. 15. Upon consideration of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it is it is evident that Exs.A5 to A7 (promissory notes) and Exs.A8 to A10 (cheques) were issued by the second defendant in the capacity of Managing Director. Although the plaintiff contended that the said documents were obtained under coercion, there is no substantive evidence on record to support that claim. Once the defendant admitted the execution of the documents, the burden was on the defendant-appellant to establish that they were obtained under coercion. Although the plaintiff contended that the said documents were obtained under coercion, there is no substantive evidence on record to support that claim. Once the defendant admitted the execution of the documents, the burden was on the defendant-appellant to establish that they were obtained under coercion. During cross-examination, DW.1 unequivocally admitted the issuance of the cheques and the advancement of funds to the plaintiff. 16. Furthermore, the account ledger produced by defendant No.1 and the plaintiff reflects the amount advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants. Thus, there is clear and cogent evidence of the advancement of funds by the plaintiff, and the contention that the documents were obtained under coercion is not sustainable. The next issue for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 24% per annum on the promissory notes. As evident from the record, the promissory notes explicitly stipulate an interest rate of 24% per annum. Once the defendant signed the instrument, it is deemed that the agreed rate of interest stands affirmed, and the defendant is liable to pay the same. Therefore, there is no illegality in calculating interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. 17. Considering the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, the submissions of the learned counsel, and the payments made, the interest awarded by the trial Court on the principal amount of Rs.9,19,625/- is hereby reduced from 12% to 6% per annum. The rest of the order remains undisturbed. 18. Accordingly, the City Civil Court Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification confined to the interest component alone. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.