JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. and Geidt, J. - This is a suit to realise a mortgage dated the 18th of July 1893. The suit was instituted on the 2nd of October 1899. The original mortgagee is dead : the Plaintiff is his transferee, and as such he paid seven or eight thousand rupees as consideration for his transfer. The only question argued before us is as to the rate of interest which the principal should bear. The principal was a small sum of three hundred rupees, and the interest was compound interest at the rate of five rupees per mensem with monthly rests. That no doubt is a very high rate and works out at between seventy and eighty per cent. The Plaintiff at the bar stated that he only claims interest at the bond rate up to the date of the suit not afterwards. The small sum of principal has swollen up with interest to a sum of about ten thousand rupees. The contention of the Defendant is that the bargain was a hard and unconscionable one, that he is entitled to be relieved from it and the Court below taking that view has allowed interest only at 2 per cent, per mensem with rests every three mouths. It is difficult to see upon what principle it has arrived at that conclusion. The Plaintiff has consequently appealed and I think the appeal must succeed. 2. It is admitted that there was no fiduciary relationship between the parties, that there is no question of dominating will or undue influence, it is not a case of a young man charging his reversionary interest at a usurious rate, at the instance of a money-lender : but it is the case of two men,--the mortgagee being a pleader of position and repute,--who made their own bargain without any undue pressure or undue influence on the part of the lender It may be a hard bargain; it may be a foolish bargain : but it is one which the mortgagor made for himself, I do not see any equitable grounds upon which the Court would be justified in making a fresh bargain for the parties. By sec. 2 of Act XXVIII of 1855 it is enacted that, where interest is recoverable Courts should decree interest at the rate agreed upon, unless upon any equitable principle the Defendant, the mortgagor, can claim exemption. By sec. 2 of Act XXVIII of 1855 it is enacted that, where interest is recoverable Courts should decree interest at the rate agreed upon, unless upon any equitable principle the Defendant, the mortgagor, can claim exemption. There is nothing here to show that the mortgagor did not understand what he was about or that he was the victim of any imposition. If it could have been shown that the contract was so extortionate that the mortgagor could not be taken to have understood what he was about or that he had been seriously imposed upon, the Court might have interfered. The case seems to me to be concluded by authority and I refer to the cases of Zebonnsisa v. Brojendra Coamar Roy Chowdry 21 W.R. 882 (1874), Mackintosh v. Wingrove ILR 4 Cal. 137 (1878), Deno Nath Santh v. Nibarun Chandra Chuckerbutty ILR 27 Cal. 421 (1899) and Appa Rau v. Surya Narayan ILR 10 Mad. 203 (1887), and I may again refer to the observations of the late Sir George Jessel in the case of Wallis v. Smith L.R. 21 Ch. Div. 243 (1882). There is no doubt that the mortgagor at the time was pressed for money : that he had applied unsuccessfully to other persons to lend it to him, and that he had to make the best terms he could. 3. A somewhat feeble attempt has been made to show that contemporaneously with the execution of the mortgage there was an oral contract in respect of the interest. But I do not think that any evidence as to such oral contract would be admissible having regard to sec. 92 of the Evidence Act. Even if such evidence were admissible, it would avail the Defendant but little, and there is a good deal of conflict about it. We have not had the evidence of the mortgagee because he is dead. At p. 143 of the paper-book the mortgagor says: "on this the Babu went into the room with Sri Nath and coming out told me that it was so written as a threat. If you pay within a month you will pay two rupees interest. We have not had the evidence of the mortgagee because he is dead. At p. 143 of the paper-book the mortgagor says: "on this the Babu went into the room with Sri Nath and coming out told me that it was so written as a threat. If you pay within a month you will pay two rupees interest. If you pay afterwards you will at the rate of one rupee eight annas I then signed the bond." But the mortgagor did not pay off the money within the month, and it is hardly conceivable that, if the rate were inserted as a threat, it should have been orally agreed that if he did not pay within the month he was only to pay at the rate of one rupee eight annas, but 2 rupees if he paid within the month. As against the man who is dead, and as against his bond fide transferee for value, this evidence must be received with great care. 4. On these grounds the appeal must be allowed, and the Plaintiff must be held entitled to interest at the rate stipulated for in the bond, up to the date of the suit, not beyond. The Defendant, however, must be allowed the 1,180 rupees mentioned in the pleadings. The usual mortgage decree will be made on this footing. The Appellant is entitled to his costs in this Court and in the Court below, which he may add to his security.