JUDGMENT Nasim Ali, J. - This Rule is directed against a decree of the Munsif, 1st Court, Berhampore, in a Small Causes Court suit. The Petitioner is the Defendant in the suit which was for recovery of 90 mds. of paddy or Rs. 213-12 as. the price thereof. The Small Causes Court Judge has found that the Petitioner borrowed 60 mds. of paddy from the Opposite Party in Bhadra, 1339, B. S., on two different dates, and agreed to repay the same with profit at the rate of fifty per cent, for each year. He was of opinion that the rate of interest was excessive. He, therefore, passed a decree for Rs. 160-5 as. as the price of 67 1/2 mds. of paddy with full costs. 2. The first contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that in view of the provisions of sees. 3 and 4 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1933, the learned Small Causes Court Judge was bound to limit the amount of interest recoverable in the suit, to an amount equal to the principal of the loan which is to be taken as the market price of the paddy lent in 1339, B. S. By sec. 2, cl. (2) of the Usurious Loans Act, " loan" means a loan whether of money or in kind, and includes any transaction which is, in the opinion of the Court, in substance a loan. " Interest " has been defined in the same Act as including the return to be made over and above what was actually lent, whether the same is charged or sought to be recovered specifically by way of interest or otherwise. The Usurious Loans Act contemplates loan of money or in kind. But the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1933, contemplates loan of money only. Secs. 3 and 4 of that Act do not therefore apply to this case, as the loan was a loan in kind. 3. The next point urged by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is that the interest or profit decreed by the Court below is excessive and substantially unfair. The lower Court has found that the Petitioner orally agreed to pay fifty per cent, of the principal as profit or interest for each year. This shows that the transaction is substantially unfair. The Petitioner agreed to repay the whole quantity of paddy in Magh, 1389. He, however, paid Rs. The lower Court has found that the Petitioner orally agreed to pay fifty per cent, of the principal as profit or interest for each year. This shows that the transaction is substantially unfair. The Petitioner agreed to repay the whole quantity of paddy in Magh, 1389. He, however, paid Rs. 50 at that time to the Plaintiff as the price of 44 1/2 mds. of paddy so that 15 1/2 mds. of paddy remained due for the principal. The learned Small Causes Court Judge has given a decree to the Plaintiff for 52 mds. of paddy as interest. The learned Judge has not given any reason as to why he reduced the claim of interest by 22 1/2 mds. only. The Plaintiff's case is that paddy is lent in in the locality under (l 1/2) system i.e., the debtor is required to pay fifty per cent, more than what is lent. This & also mentioned in the Hatchita on. which the Plaintiff based her claim. The Hatchita does not, however, indicate that the Plaintiff is entitled to get interest more than fifty per cent., or that the interest of fifty per cent, was payable for each year. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, I only allow fifty per cent, of the principal as interest, in other words, the Plaintiff shall get a decree for 45 1/2 mds. of paddy, i.e., (90-44 1/2) mds. paddy. 5. It is also contended by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that the Plaintiff can recover the price of paddy only at the rate which prevailed in 1339, B. S., i.e., at the rate of Rs. 1-2 per md. I am unable to accept this contention. Plaintiff is entitled now to recover the paddy. If the Defendant cannot deliver the paddy, he must pay the present price. The learned Judge has rightly held that the Plaintiff is entitled to get the price of the paddy at which it sells now that is, at the rate of Rs. 2-6 per md. 6. The last contention on behalf of the learned Advocate is that the learned Judge was wrong in allowing full costs to the Plaintiff. Costs should ordinarily follow the event. No reason was given by the learned Judge as to why the Plaintiff was entitled to full costs when her success was partial. 2-6 per md. 6. The last contention on behalf of the learned Advocate is that the learned Judge was wrong in allowing full costs to the Plaintiff. Costs should ordinarily follow the event. No reason was given by the learned Judge as to why the Plaintiff was entitled to full costs when her success was partial. For the above reasons I pass a decree for Rs. 108-1-0 (one hundred and eight and anna one) with proportionate costs in favour of the Plaintiff. The Rule is made absolute and the decree of the Court below is modified to the extent mentioned above. There will be no order for costs in this Rule.