JUDGMENT P.R. Sharma, J. 1. This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated the 18th of October, 1958 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Vidisha, in Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1957. 2. The facts which gave rise to the suit out of which this appeal arises may briefly be stated as under:-The appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000 from the respondent and pawned 48 bags of 'jwar' with him. He executed a bond on the same day, whereby it was agreed that the appellant will pay Rs. 20 p. m. by way of storage charges and interest on the loan. 3. On the 17th of August, 1958 the respondent-plaintiff served a notice on the defendant-appellant calling upon him to pay the debt and stating that in default of payment the pawned goods shall be sold in the market. The goods were actually sold on 8-10-1955 and a sum of Rs. 252-8-0 was thus realised by the plaintiff. The present suit was thereafter filed by the plaintiff for a total sum of Rs. 1,167-8-0 comprising of the balance of the principal amount, interest thereon and storage charges. 4. The defendant pleaded that the loss occasioned was due to omission on the part of the plaintiff to sell the 'jwar' at the end of the period stipulated for the re-payment of the loan. He contended that if the 'jwar' had been sold at the end of the said period, it would have fetched a price of Rs. 32 per maund. The fact that the 'jwar' was sold by the plaintiff on 8-10-1955 was also denied by the defendant. Lastly the defendant contended that he being an agriculturist and that the plaintiff having no licence under the Money Lenders Act, the suit was unmaintainable. 5. The trial Court held that the pawned goods were retained by the plaintiff at the request of the defendant, that the plaintiff sold the goods on 8-10-55 at the rate of Rs. 3-4-0 per maund and that the plaintiff was under no obligation to sell the goods at the end of the period stipulated for the re-payment of the loan. It also held that the defendant was not an agriculturist. Issues Nos. 7 and 8 which relate to this point were also decided in favour of the plaintiff. 6. On appeal the finding on issues Nos. It also held that the defendant was not an agriculturist. Issues Nos. 7 and 8 which relate to this point were also decided in favour of the plaintiff. 6. On appeal the finding on issues Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were, it appears, not challenged. The findings of the trial Court on these issues cannot, therefore, be challenged in the present appeal. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that 40 maunds of 'jwar' had perished. It, therefore, allowed to the defendant a sum of Rs. 130 in lieu of this quantity of the pawned goods for which the plaintiff had not been able to satisfactorily account. The plaintiff has filed a cross-objection in respect of the finding given by the lower appellate Court on this point. 7. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff was bound to sell the pawned goods at the end of the period stipulated in the bond for re-payment of the loan. He replied in support of this contention on the provisions of Sec. 176 of the Contract Act. Section 176 of the Contract Act merely provides for a right in the pledgee to sell the panned goods if the pawner makes default in payment of the debt or performance at the stipulated time of the premise in respect of which the goods were pledged. This section confers a right on the pledgee to sell the goods pledged without reference to Court, but it does not affect his right to sue the pawner on the debt or bring a suit for sale of the property pledged. [See-Official Assignee of Calcutta vs. Sahu Sarju Prasad I.L.R. (1945) All. 373; and Debi Din vs. Gaya Pershad A.I.R. 1927 Nag 346]. The learned counsel for the appellant could not cite any authority in support of his contention. It must, therefore, be rejected. 8. I was next argued by the learned counsel that in view of the provisions of the M. B. Interest Act interest could be allowed only at the rate of 9% P. A. The learned counsel for the respondent has frankly conceded to this proposition. Interest is, therefore, allowed only at the rate of 9% P.A. i.e., only to the extent of the sum of Rs. 157-8-0 instead of Rs. 120 allowed by the lower appellate Court. Interest is, therefore, allowed only at the rate of 9% P.A. i.e., only to the extent of the sum of Rs. 157-8-0 instead of Rs. 120 allowed by the lower appellate Court. The decree of the lower appellate Court shall be modified to this extent. 9. Lastly it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the lower appellate Court erred in calculating the price of the goods not accounted for by the pawnee at the rate of Rs. 3-4-0 per maund. This contention could hold good only as corrollary to his first contention which has already been over-ruled. Had the defendant tendered the amount due from him or demanded that the pawned goods be sold and if the plaintiff had then failed to produce the same wholly or in part, the plaintiff would have been liable to indemnify the defendant for the price of the goods not accounted for at the rate then prevailing in the market. But where the pledgor continues to be in default for a length of time and the pledgee after demanding re-payment of the loan sells the goods, the price of the goods not accounted for should be calculated at the rate prevailing in the market on the date on which the remaining goods were sold. In this view of the matter the finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court on this point must be upheld. 10. The result is that this appeal is partly allowed. The decree passed by the lower appellate Court is modified to the extent of deduction there from of a sum of Rs. 52-8-0 only. It is upheld in respect of the remaining amount. Since the opponent succeeds except with regard to small fraction of his claim he will be entitled to his costs from the defendant. 11. In so far as the cross-objection preferred by the plaintiff is concerned, it merely raises a question of fact namely whether the goods not accounted for had as alleged by the plaintiff perished. The finding of the lower appellate Court on this question cannot be challenged in second appeal The cross-objection has, therefore, no force and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal allowed