JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - This is a suit to enforce a mortgage dated the 3rd May 1895. The principal sum advanced was Rs. 4,200. On the 5th July 1899, the mortgagor paid Rs. 8,000 out of the sum of Rs. 13,511 which was found due on account settled, and the following endorsement was entered upon the bond :--" Paid eight thousand rupees (Rs. 8,000) out of Rs. 13,500 due up to date, the net balance left unpaid is Rs. 5,500 on which interest will be charged at the rate of eight annas per hundred per mensem from to day to the 31st March 1900, and if not paid within 31st March 1900, the interest on the balance will be Rs. 2-8 per cent. per mensem." This endorsement was signed by the mortgagor. On the same date, (although two separate dates, namely, 5th July 1899 and 30th July 1899 are given) the following endorsement was made by the mortgagee :--"I agree to take interest from to-day at the rate of 8 annas per hundred per mensem to 31st March 1900. and the unpaid balance, if any, at Rs, 2-8 per hundred per mensem." The money was not paid on the 31st March 1900, and this suit was instituted and the only question before us is as to the rate of interest. The Plaintiff mortgagee adopts the endorsement of the 5th July 1899, and is prepared to take a decree on the footing of that endorsement, but he says that, inasmuch as the sum of Rs. 5,500 with interest was not paid on the 31st March 1900, he is entitled to interest at the rate of Rs. 2-8 per cent. per mensem. It is as regards this that the present dispute has arisen. The lower Court has only allowed interest at the rate of 8 annas per cent. per mensem. The mortgagee says that that is not right, and he claims the larger rate of Rs. 2-8 per cent. The Court below seems to have taken the view that the words, "and if not paid within 31st March 1900, the interest on the balance will be Rs. 2.8 per cent. per mensem. The mortgagee says that that is not right, and he claims the larger rate of Rs. 2-8 per cent. The Court below seems to have taken the view that the words, "and if not paid within 31st March 1900, the interest on the balance will be Rs. 2.8 per cent. per mensem," were not originally on the endorsement of the 5th July 1899, but were subsequently inserted, and says that there was no consideration for that, and that, therefore, that part of the endorsement must be treated as a nullity, and not binding on the Defendant. I do not think that this argument can prevail, as the mortgagor himself tells us what the agreement was. He himself says that the interest upon the balance of Rs. 5,500 left unpaid was to be charged at the rate of 8 annas per cent. up to the 31st March 1900, and, in default of payment within that date, at the rate of Rs. 2-8 per cent. per mensem. This was the endorsement which he himself signed. He tells us, therefore, what the bargain was. If, as the Subordinate Judge suggests, the words as to the payment of the higher rate of interest were written not on the 5th July, but were inserted on the 30th July, I do not think that that would affect the rights of the parties, if the mortgagor himself tells us what the real bargain was, and the endorsement is in accordance with that bargain. I am unable, therefore, to agree with the view taken by the Subordinate Judge on this part of the case. Then it is said that this provision as to a higher rate of interest by reason of default of payment on the 31st March, was a penalty within sec. 74 of the Contract Act--I should have been glad if I could have taken that view; but the authorities are against it. Here the higher rate of interest was only that originally payable under the bond : and the new bargain under the endorsement was merely a concession to the Defendant, of which he failed to take advantage. This is not the case of a lower rate of interest being mentioned in the bond, with a provision that, if the debt be not paid, a higher rate shall prevail as from the date of the loan. This is not the case of a lower rate of interest being mentioned in the bond, with a provision that, if the debt be not paid, a higher rate shall prevail as from the date of the loan. Here the higher rate was originally contracted for : it cannot then be regarded as a penalty. Moreover it is now clearly established and has been pointed out in several cases in this Court, that where the parties are sui juris and where there is no question of fraud or oppression or improper dealing or undue influence, they are competent to make and must stand by their own bargain. The appeal must accordingly be allowed and the mortgagee must have interest at the higher rate, and have the costs of the appeal and of the suit. Gedit, J. I concur.