JUDGMENT

Maurice Gwyer, C.J. - This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the Respondent for the recovery of money claimed to be due under a mortgage bond executed in his favour by some of the Appellants on April 16, 1921. The other Defendants are minor members of the mortgagors' family. The bond provided for payment of compound interest at Rs. 1-4-0 per cent per mensem with yearly rests. Certain of the Defendants did not contest the case, but the others put the Plaintiff to proof of his claim generally ; they also contended that the rate if interest was excessive and not justified by necessity.

2. The question of the interest seems to have been the main point in controversy in the litigation. The trial court allowed only simple interest at Rs. 1-4-0 per cent. per mensem; but on appeal by the Plaintiff, the lower appellate court allowed compound interest in accordance with the terms of the mortgage bond. The third Defendant carried the matter in second appeal to the Patna High Court; and during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the Bihar Legislature passed the Bihar Act No. VII of 1938. Section 11 of that Act provided that "no court shall in any suit brought by a