This is plaintiff's appeal arising out of the Title Suit No. 67 of 1978 (200 of 1977) instituted by him in the Court of the Assistant District Judge (1) Silcharfor recovery of possession of the suit premises. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant sold the suit premises to the plaintiff under a registered deed of sale dated 6.8.73 for a consideration of Rs.3,108/-. However, there was an another deed of reconveyance of the suit premises on the condition that if the defendant could pay Rs. 3,108/- within three years, the plaintiff would execute a deed of reconveyance in favour of the defendant. It was also stipulated in the deed of reconveyance that if for any reason, the defendant foiled to pay the money, he would deliver the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on the expiry of the three years. Thus the defendant remained in possession of the suit premises. The defendant failed to perform his part of contract within the ^ stipulated period of three years and also failed to deliver the possession of the suit premises on demand and hence the suit. 2. The defendant contested the suit. The case of the defendant is that he was in urgent need of money for his own use and, therefore, the defendant approached his neighbour Shri Gopendra Ghosh who took him to the plaintiff who was engaged in money-lending business. When the defendant requested the plaintiff for a loan of Rs. 1600/- for three years, the plaintiff demanded - (1) interest at 2f% per month, viz, Rs. 1584/- for three years;(2) transfer of the suit premises by way of sale as security for repayment of the loan wherein the consideration amount would be principal amount and the interest for three years; and (3) the plaintiff- would execute a deed of reconveyance of the suit premises on payment of the principal and interest within three years subject to the condition that if the defendant failed to pay the sum within the stipulated period of three years, the defendant would deliver the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. On the next day the defendant had to agree to such unjust conditions as he was badly in need of money. During the execution of the deed, the interest was settled at Rs.I508/-. Therefore, in the deed of consideration amount was of Rs. 3108/-out of which Rs. On the next day the defendant had to agree to such unjust conditions as he was badly in need of money. During the execution of the deed, the interest was settled at Rs.I508/-. Therefore, in the deed of consideration amount was of Rs. 3108/-out of which Rs. 1600/-was the principal and Rs.1508/-was the interest. At the time of transaction, the minimum price of the suit premises would be Rs. 15000/- to Rs. 16000/-. Having compelled in the aforesaid manner, the defendant took the loan. Taking the advantage of the so called sale deed and the expiry of the time of three years under the deed of reconveyance, the plaintiff is taking the chance of grabbing the valued property at a lower price. The defendant has also taken a plea that the suit premises are joint family properties. 3. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal, the Additional District Judge in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1980 set the decree aside and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court has held that the sale deed was invalid in view of the fiduciary relationship to other and that the transaction was a mortgage and the Assam Money Lenders' Act is applicable. The lower appellate Court has also held that the suit premises are joint family properties. 4. As regards the finding of the lower appellate Court that the suit premises are joint family properties, on perusal of the records, it is found that the finding is not based on the materials on record. In respect of the applicability of the Assam Money Lenders' Act, in order to attract the applicability of the Money Lenders' Act, there must be materials on record to show that, in his regular course of business, the plaintiff advanced the loan, assuming it was a loan. But there is no evidence and/or materials on record in this regard. In the absence of the materials, a single transaction would not make the plaintiff a money lender within the meaning of Money Lenders' Act in the context of the present case (see Ka Icilda n. U.Lokendra, AIR 1987 SC2047). 5. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the sale out right with a condition of repurchase was procured by exercising undue influence as contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent. 5. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the sale out right with a condition of repurchase was procured by exercising undue influence as contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent. Under O 6, R 4, CPC( in a case in which the party pleading relies on undue influence, its particulars are to be set forth in the pleading constituting the undue influence. However, it is not desirable to place undue emphasis on the form of the pleadings, instead substance of the pleadings must be considered, but necessary material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it although the pleading however should receive a liberal construction and no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities. 6. Coming to the present case, the case of the defendant is that the term was unjust or unconscionable but the defendant was compelled to execute the deed as a sale outright of the suit premises for an inadequate consideration of amount of Rs.3108/- as the minimum price of the suit premises would be Rs. 15000/- to Rs.16000/- at that time, and that the plaintiff using his position obtained an unfair advantage over the defendant. Undue influence is defined in section 16(1) of the Contract Act in the following terms “A contract is said to be induced by 'undue influence where relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other." The illustration (c) to section 16 of the Contract Act which reads : "A, being in debt to B, the money­lender of his village, contracts a fresh loan on terms which appear to be unconscionable. It lies on B to prove that the contract was not induced by undue influence". A reading of the written statement together with section 16 and illustration (c) to section 16,1 am of the view that particulars of the undue influence had been substantially pleaded by the defendant. 7. Coming to the question of undue influence, the lower appellate Court has discussed the oral evidence and other circumstances holding that those are admissible under the proviso (1) to section 92 of the Evidence Act to invalidate the sale deed. 7. Coming to the question of undue influence, the lower appellate Court has discussed the oral evidence and other circumstances holding that those are admissible under the proviso (1) to section 92 of the Evidence Act to invalidate the sale deed. The lower appellate Court has further held that the plaintiff being in a fiduciary position, charged at higher rate of interest at 2f% P.M. than permissible and compelled the defendant to execute the deed of sale on actually receiving Rs.l600/~ as a loan and mentioning Rs. 3108/-as consideration amount for the premises worth about Rs. 20000/-. The lower appellate Court has furthermore held that the induced sale by Ext. 1, has conferred no title to the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said that the contention on this point has been raised for the first time. 8. The defendant has no option to accept the demand made by the plaintiff may not itself a ground for avoiding a sale. Similarly, mere inade­quacy of price in itself is also not sufficient ground for making a sale invalid, If the vendor was in a distress circumstance and the advantage was taken of that distress, than the sale may be vitiated. Therefore, the entire facts and circumstances are to be considered as the 'undue influence is a legal inference from the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Let me examine the case on hand. Admittedly the defendant has been in possession of the suit land by paying taxes. The evidence of DWs 1 and 2 (attesting witnesses of the sale deed) is that the plaintiff gave a loan of Rs.l000/-only to the defendant. The interest at the rate of 23/4% per month, that is, 33% per annum. Section ISA of the Assam Money Lenders' Act provides that the provisions under sections 3,4,8,9 and 10 of the Act shall apply also to a person or body of persons who advances a loan, but who is not a money lender under the Act. Under section 8, a Court shall not decree as interest any sum in excess of 93/4% per annum in the case of secured loan, and 123/4% per annum in the case of unsecured loan. In that view of the matter, the interest of 33% per annum is unreasona­ble. The value of the suit premises was about 20.000/- at the transaction and, therefore, there was inadequacy of price. In that view of the matter, the interest of 33% per annum is unreasona­ble. The value of the suit premises was about 20.000/- at the transaction and, therefore, there was inadequacy of price. It appears to me that the term was unconscionable and that the plaintiff was in a position to dominate the will of the defendant as he was in distress circumstances and the plaintiff took the advantage of it over the defendant and therefore, the sale was induced by undue influence. In such a situation, the sale outright with a condition to repurchase was void. 10. The next question which arises for consideration is what relief should be given to the plaintiff. Section 65 of the Contract Act provides that, an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it, to the person from whom he received it. Admittedly, the defendant received a sum of Rs. 1600/-. The transfer as outright sale was void, the defendant has not been paying the sum of Rs. 1600/- from 6.8.1973 till date, that is for more than 17 years. Therefore, the defendant is to compensate the plaintiff. 11. The question then is what would be just compensation to be awarded to the plaintiff. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping In view the interest rate provided under the Money Lenders' Act and the changes of rate of interest of the nationalised banks, I am of the view that if a sum of Rs. 10000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only is awarded as compensation to the plaintiff, it would be just and reasonable, 12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the following orders :-The defendant shall pay a sum of Rs. 10000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only to the plaintiff within a period of six (6) months from the date of this judgment. If the defendant fails to pay the amount within a period of six (6) months, the defendant shall deliver the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. With the above observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of No costs.