Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (January 19, 1903), affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Agra (June 8, 1900). The question decided was as to the construction and effect of s. 80 of Act XXVI. of 1881 with reference to six hundis in the vernacular drawn by the appellant on himself in favour of the respondent, payable at Muttra, all of them silent as to interest. The suit was to recover Rs. 5600 as principal and Rs. 4938 as interest at 80 per cent, per annum alleged to be due on the said hundis. Both Courts found in favour of the respondent that the parties had agreed that interest at 30 per cent, per annum should be paid and that such agreement was admissible in evidence under s. 92 proviso 2, of the Indian Evidence Act, and was valid and operative. They also held that s. 80 of Act XXVI. of 1881 was inapplicable to the case. The High Court certified, under s. 595, clause (c), of the Civil Procedure Code, that it was a fit case for appeal, the amount of business done in hundis in the country rendering it desirable that the law in regard to them should be settled. 7 Law Rep. 34 Ind. App. 6 ( 1906- 1907) Goswami Sri Ghanshiam Lalji V. Ram Narain 108 A. M. Dunne, for the appellant, contended that the true effect of s. 80 of Act. XXVI. of 1881 is to add to the hundis in suit as negotiable instruments a clause entitling the holder to 6 per cent interest per annum and no more. The collateral agreement in this case for interest at 30 per cent, was not admissible in evidence under the Evidence Act, s. 92. Such a stipulation was an addition to the terms of the instrument upon a matter provided for by the Act of 1881, and was, moreover, inconsistent both with the Act and the hundis. It was contended that it was therefore inoperative and invalid, and that s. 80 precluded a higher rate of interest than 6 per cent. Reference was made to ss. 1 and 79 of the Act of 1881, and to the-Interest Act (XXXII. of 1839). The respondent did not appear. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR ARTHUR WILSON. It was contended that it was therefore inoperative and invalid, and that s. 80 precluded a higher rate of interest than 6 per cent. Reference was made to ss. 1 and 79 of the Act of 1881, and to the-Interest Act (XXXII. of 1839). The respondent did not appear. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR ARTHUR WILSON. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought upon six hundis drawn by the defendant (appellant) upon himself in favour of the plaintiff (respondent). The hundis were silent as to interest; but there was a collateral agreement, embodied in written documents, that the hundis should bear interest at a rate equivalent to 30 per cent, per annum. And it has been held that the dealing with interest by a collateral agree ment, and not on the face of the hundis, was in accordance with the custom prevailing in the district, and amongst the class, affected by this suit. The contention of the appellant was that, notwithstanding the agreement of the parties, the respondents right to interest was restricted to 6 per cent, by s. 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, XXVI. of 1881. Both the Courts in India rejected this contention, and their Lordships think rightly. The section says "When no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount due thereon shall, except in cases provided for by the Code of Civil Procedure, section 582, be calculated at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the date at which the same ought to have been paid by the party charged, until tender or realization of the amount due thereon, or until such date after the institution of a suit to recover such amount as the Court directs. " Explanation—When the par fey charged is the indorser of an instrument dishonoured by non-payment, he is liable to pay interest only from the time that he receives notice of the dishonour." In 1855, by Act XXVIII. of that year, the usury laws previously in force were repealed, and the general rule was laid down that 11 In any suit in which interest is recoverable, the amount shall be adjudged or decreed by the Court at the rate (if any) agreed upon by the parties." Sect. of that year, the usury laws previously in force were repealed, and the general rule was laid down that 11 In any suit in which interest is recoverable, the amount shall be adjudged or decreed by the Court at the rate (if any) agreed upon by the parties." Sect. 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not purport to deprive those dealing with such instruments of the freedom of contract possessed by other contracting parties. It purports to confer a right to interest, not to take away such a right otherwise existing. When a plaintiff has to rely upon the section as the ground of his claim to interest, no doubt the terms of the section must be followed. But to read the section as depriving him of a contractual right of interest would be to read into it something, which it does not say, and which cannot reasonably be implied from its language. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed. The respondent not having appeared, there will be no order as to costs.