Short Note : This second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Court below directing them to redeem the mortgage on payment of interest at the rate of 36% per annum along with the remaining amount towards the principal amount of loan. Held : The error in which the Courts below have fallen appears to be that merely on the ground of the language of the rent note, the case put up by the plaintiffs about the real nature of the transaction for the collateral purpose was ignored under the impression that the same was not permissible according to the provisions of the Evidence Act. It is now well settled that a party to a transaction evidenced by a deed can certainly show by oral evidence that the execution of the said deed was nominal and was not intended to be acted upon as such but was meant for being used solely for other collateral purposes. What is relevant is the real nature of the transaction and not the label put on the document. The label put on a document is not always conclusive. 2. In the present case there is sufficient material on record to show that the execution of the rent note was a nominal one and what was actually intended to be acted upon by the parties was the payment of interest at the rate of 36%. This fact is borne out from the undisputed circumstance that along with the part-payment of the principal amount of loan, the rate of monthly payment was also being reduced proportionately and, as such, initially, when nothing was paid towards the principal amount, the plaintiffs, it appears, had paid Rs. 150. But, thereafter, they had been paying proportionately lesser amounts, such as, Rs. 135, Rs. 120 and at the end Rs. 60 per month, when the principal amount of loan was reduced to Rs. 2,000, which was still in balance on the date of the suit. Had it been a real transaction of lease back and was not meant for ensuring recovery of interest, the aforesaid situation would not have occurred. It is true that there is no written agreement to pay interest, hut the same does not affect to the case of the plaintiffs that there was an agreement to pay interest at the rate of 36% per annum. It is true that there is no written agreement to pay interest, hut the same does not affect to the case of the plaintiffs that there was an agreement to pay interest at the rate of 36% per annum. 3. In my opinion, the Courts below have acted with material irregularity in ignoring the case of the plaintiffs which is fully borne out from the undisputed circumstances as discussed above. It is therefore, held that the execution of the rent note was nominal and was meant for securing payment of interest at the rate of 36% per annum. 4. Now, the question which arises for consideration is whether this amount is excessive and the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as contemplated by the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act. This is true that the plaintiffs have claimed reduction of the rate of interest to 9%. But looking to the prevalent rate of interest at the relevant period, payment of interest at the rate of Rs. 18% per annum would be reasonable. AIR 1971 SC 310 , 1963 JLJ 952 and 1963 JLJ 174 distinguished. AIR 1940 Mad. 946 relied. Appeal allowed.