Independent appellate reasoning and reasonable post-suit interest govern non-commercial loan disputes; excessive interest was reduced.

A first appellate court's reversal will stand in second appeal if it independently appraises the evidence and gives reasons, because interference is confined to a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC; the limitation finding based on dishonour of the cheque was therefore sustained. Post-suit interest under Section 34 CPC must be reasonable and reflect the nature of the liability, and where the transaction is a non-commercial hand loan without a contractual rate, 18% per annum was found excessive. The decree on liability was affirmed, but the interest component was reduced to 8% per annum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the first appellate judgment was vitiated for not meeting the trial court's reasoning; (ii) whether interest at 18% per annum could be awarded on the decretal amount in the absence of a commercial transaction or contract.

Issue (i): Whether the first appellate judgment was vitiated for not meeting the trial court's reasoning.

Analysis: In a second appeal, interference is warranted only on a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A first appellate court must independently assess the evidence and give reasons when it reverses findings of the trial court. On the pleadings, there was no admission that the cheque was issued merely as security. The appellate court had considered the oral and documentary evidence and gave reasons for rejecting the trial court's view on limitation, holding that the cause of action arose on dishonour of the cheque.

Conclusion: The appellate judgment was not vitiated on this ground and its finding on limitation was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether interest at 18% per annum could be awarded on the decretal amount in the absence of a commercial transaction or contract.

Analysis: Under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the rate of post-suit interest depends on the nature of the liability and any contractual rate. The transaction here was a hand loan between close acquaintances and not a commercial transaction. In that setting, awarding interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit to realization was held to be excessive.

Conclusion: The award of interest at 18% per annum was set aside and reduced to 8% per annum.

Final Conclusion: The decree was affirmed on liability and limitation, but modified to the extent of reducing the rate of interest, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the first appellate court's reversal will not be disturbed if it independently appraises the evidence and gives reasons, and post-suit interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be reasonable and proportionate where the transaction is not commercial.

---