JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - On 6th July 1916 the defendants-respondents executed a bond in favour of the plaintiff-appellant acknowledging liability for the sum of Rs. 67 received in cash, 218 maunds and 12½ seers of wheat and a certain quantity of gram (with which we are not concerned in the present litigation) and promising to pay interest at 18¾ per cent per annum on the cash amount and at Sudh Panchanti (37½ per cent per annum) on the grain. No period for the repayment of the loan was fixed.

2. On 21st March 1922, the plaintiff instituted the present suit admitting that the quantity of gram had been repaid and claiming Rs. 6,000 as due to him as follows:--

Image

3. The defendants admitted execution of the bond but denied that it had been executed for consideration. They further pleaded that the rate of interest and the other conditions mentioned in the bond were penal and exorbitant and "the same constituted undue pressure." They also alleged certain repayments and stated that nothing was in reality due to the plaintiff.

4. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge found that the bond was for consideration, that nothing had been proved to have been repaid, but that interest claimed on the quantity of grain advanced was exorbitant. He accordingly allowed interest on cash and grain at a uniform rate of 18½ percent per annum, and valuing the quantity of wheat thus due at 10½ seers per rupee, the rate prevailing on the date of the bond, granted to the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 1,973-13-3 with proportionate costs. He further directed that the decretal amount be paid in six half-yearly instalments.

5. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with this decree, has preferred a first appeal to this Court and prays that the decretal amount be enhanced to Rs. 6,000, the sum claimed in the plaint.

6. The case originally came up for hearing before Harrison and Dalip Singh, JJ. who framed the following additional issue and remanded it to the trial Court under Order 41, Rule 25, Civil P.C., for enquiry and finding thereon:

Did the plaintiff not exercise under influence over the father of the defendants and thereby induce him to execute Ex. P-1?

7. On the case coming up for final disposal before us, it was conceded by both sides, that there was no dispute now relating to the amount of cash advanced and the interest due thereon. The points debated before us are: (a) whether the plaintiff has succeeded in discharging the onus of the issue aforesaid, and if so at what rate should interest be allowed on the quantity of wheat for which liability had been acknowledged by the defendants in the bond and (b) whether the price of the wheat is to be calculated at the market rate on the date of the execution of the bond or on the date of the institution of the suit.

8. After a careful examination of the evidence led by the parties before and after remand, and, after giving full consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel on both sides, we are of opinion that the plaintiff has succeeded in discharging the onus of the issue and in establishing that no undue influence was in fact exercised by him on the defendants. Both the scribe and the attesting witness gave evidence at the trial and deposed that the transaction was a perfectly straightforward one. The defendants were unable to elicit anything in cross-examination to shake the credit of these witnesses. Except for the small sum of Rs. 67 which was advanced in cash, the rest of the consideration consisted of the grain due on previous dealings between the parties, which were supported either by bonds executed by one or other of the defendants or by entries in the plaintiff's bahis thumb-marked by defendant 1. It was not alleged, much less proved, that any of these prior transactions had been brought about improperly. The rate of interest-charged in these anterior dealings is the same as that mentioned in the bond, and there appears to be no reason why the defendants should have agreed to acknowledge and re