Judgment.- The only question in this appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole was right in refusing to give relief under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918. The defendants executed a mortgage bond in favour of the plaintiff, Ex. P-1, dated 10th August, 1936, for Rs. 6,000 payable with interest thereon at twelve annas per cent. per mensem at compound rate. The defendants pleaded that the said rate was excessive and substantially unfair and therefore was liable to be reduced. The learned Subordinate Judge held that there was nothing excessive or unconscionable in the rate of interest charged on the suit bond. The defendants have preferred the above appeal. Section 3(1) of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, reads: "Notwithstanding anything in the Usury Laws Repeal Act, 1885, where, in any suit to which this Act applies, whether heard ex parte or otherwise, the Court has reason to believe, (a) that the interest is excessive, and (b) that the transaction was, as between the parties thereto, substantially unfair, the Court may exercise all or any of the following powers". The Act is amended in its application to the Madras Presidency by the Usurious Loans (Madras Amendment) Act, 1936, Act VIII of 1937. The relevant amendment reads as follows: "Explanation I.-If the interest is excessive, the Court shall presume that the transaction was substantially unfair; but such presumption may be rebutted by proof of special circumstances justifying the rate of interest: Provided that in the case of loans to agriculturists if compound interest is charged the Court shall presume that the interest is excessive". A combined reading of these provisions indicates that if compound interest is charged and there is no rebutting evidence the Court shall presume the interest charged is excessive and the transaction is also substantially unfair. In this case as compound interest is charged, under the proviso the Court shall presume that the interest is excessive. The learned Subordinate Judge held on the evidence that the said presumption was rebutted. I cannot agree . The plaintiff did not take any risk in advancing the moneys to the defendants. The financial conditions of the defendants was sound and the properties mortgaged were valuable. There is no evidence to show that in or about the year 1936 the prevailing rate of interest in the locality concerned was nine per cent. compound. But the plaintiff relied on two documents, Ex. The financial conditions of the defendants was sound and the properties mortgaged were valuable. There is no evidence to show that in or about the year 1936 the prevailing rate of interest in the locality concerned was nine per cent. compound. But the plaintiff relied on two documents, Ex. P-3 dated 19th July, 1921, the mortgage deed executed by Sitabai Amma and others in favour of the 1st defendant’s mother and Ex. P-14 dated 3rd April, 1923, executed by Sitaramiah Naidu in favour of the 1st defendant’s mother. Under both these documents the debtors agreed to pay nine per cent. compound interest. But these documents relate to a period of ten years prior to the suit mortgage deed and they cannot conceivably afford any basis for ascertaining the current market rate of interest in the year 1936. D.W.1, in his evidence, says that prior to the suit the defendants executed another bond in favour of the plaintiff stipulating to pay at the rate of nine per cent. compound interest but the plaintiff accepted only nine per cent. simple interest. From this evidence, I cannot hold that the presumption in favour of the defendants is rebutted. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, in my view, nine per cent. simple interest will be a reasonable rate. As regards lawyer’s fee no case is made out for interference. The appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs in this Court. The plaintiff will only get his proportionate costs in the Court below. K.C. ----- Appeal allowed in part.