JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) assailing the judgment and decree in OS.No.394 of 2015, dated 12.10.2022 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 2. Appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in OS.No.394 of 2015. 3.1. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale, dated 25.08.2014 and the alternate prayer is to direct the appellant-defendant to refund the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum till the date of realization and to pay Rs.2 Lakhs towards compensation for the mental agony. 3.2. It is stated in the plaint that the appellant-defendant is the owner and possessor of Flat bearing No.402, Poornima Mansion with Municipal bearing No.1-9-295/32/5/A, Vidya Nagar Hyderabad, consisting of 830 square feets area along with car parking. Appellant-defendant has offered to sell the property to the respondent-plaintiff for an amount of Rs.20 Lakhs and Agreement of Sale is executed on 25.08.2014. Respondent-plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs towards part sale consideration on the date of Agreement of Sale. Appellant- defendant has informed the respondent-plaintiff that the property was mortgaged to one smt.Madhavi and on releasing the same she will execute the sale deed in favour of a respondent-plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff has approached the appellant-defendant on three occasions but she has postponed the same. Thereafter, he has got issued a legal notice on 24.10.2014 calling the appellant- defendant to come forward to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration within 7 days of receipt of the notice. As she failed to come forward, he filed the suit for specific performance of contract in alternate to refund the advanced amount of Rs.10 Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum and also claimed compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs. 4. Appellant-defendant filed written statement and contended that Agreement of Sale dated 25.08.2014 is created for the purpose of the suit and she never entered into agreement with the respondent-plaintiff and there is no part payment made by the respondent-plaintiff to the appellant-defendant. 4. Appellant-defendant filed written statement and contended that Agreement of Sale dated 25.08.2014 is created for the purpose of the suit and she never entered into agreement with the respondent-plaintiff and there is no part payment made by the respondent-plaintiff to the appellant-defendant. One M.Krishna Reddy and the respondent-plaintiff are doing money lending business and running Private Chits, the appellant-defendant is one of the subscriber of the said Chits and during the said transaction, M.Krishna Reddy and the respondent-plaintiff have obtained blank signatures of the appellant-defendant on non-judicial stamp papers and also on pro-notes, cheques, white papers towards security of the money transaction. There was exchange of notices between the parties. In the year 2014, the market value of the suit property is more than Rs.40 Lakhs. Therefore, the execution of Agreement of Sale for an amount of Rs.20 Lakhs on 25.08.2014 is not reasonable and prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25.08.2014 against the defendant as prayed for? 2. Whether the suit agreement was falsely created by the plaintiff by obtaining the signatures of the defendant on non-judicial stamp papers and white papers in connection with chit transaction? 3. Whether the suit property was undervalued and the Court fee is insufficient? 4. To what relief? 6. Respondent-plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Exs.B1 and B2 are marked in the cross of PW.1. Appellant-defendant is examined as DW.1, got marked Exs.B3 to B6. 7. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties has dismissed the suit for specific performance of contract and decreed the suit for refund of amount directing the appellant-defendant to pay an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization. Further, the appellant-defendant is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs towards damages/compensation. 8.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that the learned trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff proved that he entered into Agreement of Sale with the appellant-defendant for purchasing the suit schedule property. Further, the appellant-defendant is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs towards damages/compensation. 8.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that the learned trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff proved that he entered into Agreement of Sale with the appellant-defendant for purchasing the suit schedule property. In fact, Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale, dated 25.08.2014 is not proved and the respondent-plaintiff failed to examine the attestors to Ex.A1, no finding is given by the learned trial Court regarding non-examination of the two attestors. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that Ex.B1 bears the signature of the respondent- plaintiff as it was issued by her as a surety for the Chit. Respondent-plaintiff admitted that Sri Laxmi Narasaiah, Advocate has issued legal notice on 31.05.2014 (Ex.B2). Respondent-plaintiff admitted that he has not stated specifically in the chief affidavit so also in the plaint about the exact date and time when he paid to Rs.10 Lakhs to the appellant-defendant and he further stated that from the years 2013 to 2016 he did not file any Income Tax returns. Respondent-plaintiff failed to explain in what mode he paid Rs.10 Lakhs to the appellant-defendant. 8.2. The learned trial court has come to a wrong conclusion that the appellant-defendant is a Law Graduate but she never disclosed the same in her pleadings or in her chief affidavit. In fact, she is studying Law. The learned trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff has lent Rs.10 Lakhs towards Agreement of Sale and wrongly directed the appellant- defendant to return the amount with interest @ 24% per annum with compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs. The learned trial Court erred in not deciding issues No.1 to 3 separately issue wise. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal and Another , AIR 2008 SC 1541 , (2) G.Hanumantu Vs. T.Rajitha Reddy , 2005 (3) ALD 211 , (3) Hotel Asrani Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad Vs. Trilok Singh (died) per LR and Another , 2013 (6) ALD 579 (DB) , (4) Ganuga Ranganath and Another Vs. Hotel Garudadri (Pvt.) Ltd., Hindupur, Ananthapur District , 2018 (3) ALD 40 (DB) , (5) B.Kesavalu Vs. M.Ellappan , MANU/TN/0949/2020, (6) S.R.Suresh Vs. Rudrappa Kabbur , AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2631, (7) Namboori Janaki T. Ramaiah (Died) per LRs Vs. Trilok Singh (died) per LR and Another , 2013 (6) ALD 579 (DB) , (4) Ganuga Ranganath and Another Vs. Hotel Garudadri (Pvt.) Ltd., Hindupur, Ananthapur District , 2018 (3) ALD 40 (DB) , (5) B.Kesavalu Vs. M.Ellappan , MANU/TN/0949/2020, (6) S.R.Suresh Vs. Rudrappa Kabbur , AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2631, (7) Namboori Janaki T. Ramaiah (Died) per LRs Vs. Gurram Hanumantha Rao, 2022 (4) ALD 155 (TS). 9.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly decreed the suit for refund of amount with interest @ 24% per annum and also awarded compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 9.2. Respondent-plaintiff has not filed any Appeal against the rejection of specific performance. 10. Counsel on record have filed their written submissions in support of their contentions. 11. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 12. Now the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the learned trial Court fell in error in deciding issues No.1 to 3 comprehensively, if so? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court or not? 3. To what relief? Point Nos.1 to 3: 13. Ex.A1 is the Agreement of Sale, dated 25.08.2014 executed by appellant-defendant in favour of respondent-plaintiff which goes to show that the total sale consideration of the Flat No.402 Poornima Mansion, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad is shown as Rs.20 Lakhs and an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs is paid as advance by the vendee to the vendor. The condition in Ex.A1 is that vendee (respondent-plaintiff) has agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.10 Lakhs to the vendor at the time of registration within 45 days. Ex.A1 further goes to show that the schedule property covered under Ex.A1 is mortgaged to Smt. M.Madhavi, W/o.Srinivas Reddy for an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs which amount will be paid by the vendee at the time of registration and the balance amount will be paid to the vendor. 14. Ex.A1 further goes to show that the schedule property covered under Ex.A1 is mortgaged to Smt. M.Madhavi, W/o.Srinivas Reddy for an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs which amount will be paid by the vendee at the time of registration and the balance amount will be paid to the vendor. 14. Ex.A2 is the legal notice got issued by the respondent- plaintiff to the appellant-defendant on 24.10.2014 stating that he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration and requested her to come forward to receive the amount and register the sale deed within 7 days of receipt of the notice failing which he will be constrained to proceed to file the suit. Ex.A3 is the Postal Receipt and Ex.A4 is the Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.A5 is the BRS Regularisation of original paper of plot No.402 and Ex.A6 is the car parking of plot No.402. 15. Exs.B1 and B2 are marked in the cross-examination of PW.1 (respondent-plaintiff). Ex.B1 goes to show that as on 10th December, 2013, appellant-defendant is liable to pay chit amount of Rs.43,500/- only which is signed by the respondent-plaintiff. Ex.B2 is the legal notice got issued by M.Krishna Reddy to the appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff stating that appellant-defendant has borrowed Rs.5 Lakhs from him on 15.03.2014 and executed pro-note to that effect and that respondent-plaintiff stood as surety. 16. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff is the same with that of his plaint averments. In his cross-examination he stated that Ex.B1 bears his signature and Krishna Reddy is known to him and appellant-defendant has subscribed two chits with Krishna Reddy and she lifted the same and she requested him to stand as surety for both the chits and that G. Laxmi Narsaiah, Advocate has got issued legal notice under Ex.B2 dated 31.05.2014 and he was forced to collect the chit amounts from the appellant-defendant when she defaulted. On 10.10.2014, he demanded the defendant (appellant herein) to execute sale deed and the life of two chits is 20 months. He got prepared the draft copy of Agreement of Sale and gave it to the defendant (appellant herein) after her approval he got prepared the fair copy. Witness adds that the draft was approved by the defendant after lunch on 25.08.2014. He got prepared the draft copy of Agreement of Sale and gave it to the defendant (appellant herein) after her approval he got prepared the fair copy. Witness adds that the draft was approved by the defendant after lunch on 25.08.2014. At the time of execution of Ex.A1 two witnesses were present who attested Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale, dated 25.08.2014 and in Ex.A1, defendant (appellant herein) is shown as vendor and she is cited as male person, similarly he is shown as female person, witness adds that it is a typographical mistake. At the time of execution of Ex.A1 there was no denomination of Rs.2,000/- and he has not filed any piece of paper to prove his financial capacity of paying Rs.10 Lakhs to the defendant (appellant herein) and he is an Income Tax assessee, he has not filed any Income Tax returns for the period from 2013 to 2016 and the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs does not belong to him, witness adds that it is of his daughter by name Pratibha Reddy who is 40 years old. PW.1 denied the suggestion that he has obtained the signatures of the defendant (appellant herein) on bond paper and other blank papers and later he got it transferred them into Ex.A1 on the plea that he has obtained those blank signed papers to be given to M.Krishna Reddy for chit purpose and utilised them for the purpose of the case. He has lodged a complaint before P.S. Nallakunta for non-execution of sale deed against the defendant (appellant herein) and the police has advised him to approach the Court. He denied the suggestion that he has not paid Rs.10 Lakhs to the defendant (appellant herein) on the date of execution of Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale, dated 25.08.2014. 17. The evidence of the appellant-defendant is the same with that of her written statement. In her cross-examination she stated that she has no document to show that Lakshma Reddy is doing Chit business along with Krishna Reddy and she has lifted two chits after six months of its subscription which are for an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs each and she has received Rs.3.25 Lakhs from Krishna Reddy and Lakshma Reddy (respondent-plaintiff) for one chit and the 2 nd chit lifted by her is in the ninth month of its subscription and she has received Rs.3,55,000/- and in the 2 nd chit, Lakshma Reddy (respondent-plaintiff) has given surety. And the chits were completed in the year 2014, which were for 20 months @ Rs.25,000/- per month for each chit. She gave reply to Ex.B2-legal notice and as per the contents of Ex.B2 she has taken loan of Rs.5 Lakhs from Krishna Reddy. She has received the legal notice got issued by respondent-plaintiff under Ex.A2 but she did not give any reply. Witness adds that plaintiff himself stated that reply is not required and she has not given any notice to return the bond papers nor lodged complaint for misuse of the same. She admitted with regard to Ex.A5-BRS regularization of original paper of plot No.402 and Ex.A6-car parking of plot No.402 and the plaintiff (respondent herein) is retired Government servant. DW.1 denied the suggestion that she entered into Agreement of Sale under Ex.A1 on 25.08.2014 and she received Rs.10 Lakhs as part sale consideration. She also denied the suggestion that she is liable to execute the sale deed. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits the learned trial Court ought to have discussed issue Nos.1 to 3 separately and ought to have given separate findings. 19. In G.Hanumanthu 2 , the High Court observed that “the trial Court to deal with issues separately or by clubbing interrelated issues, framing several issues and dealing with them together is not proper”. 20. Issue No.1 framed by the learned trial Court is with regard to the entitlement of specific performance of contract by the respondent-plaintiff and issue No.2 is with regard to whether the suit agreement was created by the respondent-plaintiff by obtaining the signatures of appellant-defendant on non-judicial stamp paper and white papers in connection with chit transaction and issue No.3 is with regard to the undervaluation of the suit. The learned trial Court thought it fit that issues No.1 to 3 are interrelated and dealt with them together holding that the issues are interrelated with each other. This Court finds that the learned trial Court has rightly thought it fit to club all the issues together as they are interrelated with each other and rightly discussed them. 21.1. Plaintiffs came to Court alleging that the first defendant had executed an Agreement of Sale in his favour. The first defendant having denied it, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the first defendant had executed the agreement and not on the first defendant to prove the negative. 21.1. Plaintiffs came to Court alleging that the first defendant had executed an Agreement of Sale in his favour. The first defendant having denied it, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the first defendant had executed the agreement and not on the first defendant to prove the negative. The issues also placed the burden on the plantiff to prove the document to be true : See Thiruvengada Pillai(supra). The same view is followed in S.R.Suresh (supra) 21.2. In Hotel Asrani Pvt. Ltd.(supra), the High Court has reduced the interest rate from 24% per annum to 12% per annum in granting the decree for refund of amount. The same view is taken in Ganuga Ranganath and another(supra) , B.Keshavulu(supra) , Namboori Janaki T.Ramaia (supra). 22. It is the defence of the appellant-defendant that respondent- plaintiff and Krishna Reddy have obtained her signatures on blank white paper, bond papers, pro-notes and also obtained cheques as a security towards the money transaction. Burden is placed on the appellant-defendant in respect of Issue No.2. If really the appellant-defendant has signed on non- judicial stamp paper, definitely she would have given notice to the respondent-plaintiff and M.Krishna Reddy to not to misuse the same. Respondent-plaintiff has got issued Ex.A2-legal notice to the appellant-defendant which is received by her under Ex.A4. Furthermore, she also admitted in her cross-examination about the receipt of legal notice got issued by respondent-plaintiff under Ex.A2. Appellant-defendant failed to give reply to Ex.A2-legal notice dated 24.10.2014 nor gave any explanation why she has not given any reply to Ex.A2, but went on to say that the respondent-plaintiff has informed her not to give any reply. A suggestion is put to respondent-plaintiff in the cross-examination that he has obtained the signatures of appellant-defendant on one bond paper and other blank papers and later got it transformed into Ex.A1. The learned trial Court rightly arrived at a conclusion that since the schedule property is already mortgaged with Smt.Mandadi Madhavi, has rightly decreed the suit for return of Rs.10 Lakhs to the respondent-plaintiff. 23. In so far as interest part is concerned, learned trial Court has directed the appellant-defendant to pay Rs.10 Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization. 23. In so far as interest part is concerned, learned trial Court has directed the appellant-defendant to pay Rs.10 Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization. Awarding of interest @ 24% per annum is on a higher side and the decisions cited by the appellant counsel in Hotel Asrani Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Ganuga Ranganath (supra), B.Keshavulu (supra), Namboori Janaki T.Ramaia (supra) are applicable to the case on hand hence, this Court is of the view that interest awarded by the learned trial Court @ 24% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization has to be reduced @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. 24. Insofar as claim of damages/compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs is concerned, respondent-plaintiff has not claimed any compensation in Ex.A2-legal notice, dated 24.10.2014. Furthermore, there is no pleading in the plaint for claiming damages/compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs except in the prayer portion. Respondent-plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to that effect. Hence, the observation of the learned trial Court with regard to awarding damages/compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs to the respondent-plaintiff is not based with any evidence on record. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 25. The decision cited by the appellant counsel in Tiruvengada Pillai 1 and S.R.Suresh (supra) are not applicable to the case on hand and the ratio of those cases would not apply to the present case. 26. In view of the reasons above, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of reducing the rate of interest from 24% per annum to 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization and the damages/compensation awarded by the learned trial Court of Rs.2 Lakhs is also set aside. 27. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OS No.394 of 2015, dated 12.10.2022 is confirmed in respect of return of refund of Rs.10 Lakhs. 27. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OS No.394 of 2015, dated 12.10.2022 is confirmed in respect of return of refund of Rs.10 Lakhs. Interest part of 24% per annum is scaled down to 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. Damages/compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs granted by the learned trial Court is also set aside. Parties to bear their own costs. Interim Orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.