Varadachariar, J.

1. This is an appeal by the mortgagor, against a decree for sale passed in the mortgagees suit. Only two points have been raised in the appeal: One relates to an item of Rs. 7,000, which formed part of the consideration recited in the mortgage bond; the other question relates to the rate t f interest.

2. The first question formed the subject of issue 6 and has been discussed pretty fully in para. 9 of the lower Courts judgment. Before the lower Court, the accounts showing a loan of Rs. 6,000 to defendant is mother were not available, as they were in the records of the High Court in a pending appeal. Defendant 1 did not deny the arrangement that the sum of Rs. 7,000 now claimed was to be utilised in discharge of the above debt due by his mother to the plaintiff. His only contention was that the plaintiff promised to satisfy him that such a debt was really due from the mother by the production of the accounts, but that he had not done so. We are not prepared to accept his statement that he felt any doubt about the truth of the mothers indebtedness, though technically he is entitled to the proof of it by the production of the accounts. Whatever strength there w