P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE unsuccessful defendant in OS No. 101/83 on the file of subordinate Judge, Proddatur preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree made therein dated 26-7-1985. 2002 Supp. (1) FR-F-33 ( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the respondent in the appeal. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to as "plaintiff and "defendant". ( 3 ) THE plaintiff/respondent had instituted the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 22,715/- with interest payable by the appellant/defendant and also for subsequent interest and costs by sale of the plaint schedule hypothica. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of rs. 8,000/- from the plaintiff on 7-1-1972 and executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff hypothecating the schedule mentioned property as security for the said debt. It was marked as Ex. A1. The defendant had undertaken to repay the debt with interest at 18% per annum with yearly rests. The defendant paid the interest regularly to plaintiff till december, 1975 and subsequent thereto default was committed. But however, certain part payments were made. Exs. A2, A3, A4 are the endorsements and Ex. A5 is the office copy of the notice issued by the advocate dated 8-11-1982 and Ex. A6 is the reply notice issued by the defendant dated 22-12-1982. Since the defendant had not discharged the balance debt due under the mortgage deed, the suit was instituted. The defendant-appellant herein had filed a written statement in which the truth, validity and genuineness of the mortgage deed was not at all disputed. The defendant pleaded that the payments made were not properly given credit to and that the claim of interest is excessive. On the strength of the respective pleadings, the following issues were settled: 1. Are the payments pleaded by the defendant true? 2. Is the claim of interest putforth in suit usurious? 3. Is the plaintiff not entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant? 4. To what relief? the Court below had recorded the evidence of PW1, the plaintiff in the suit and DW1, the defendant in the suit and had marked exs. A1 to A6 and after detailed discussion issue Nos. 1 to 4 had been answered and ultimately a preliminary decree was passed granting some time for redemption. 4. To what relief? the Court below had recorded the evidence of PW1, the plaintiff in the suit and DW1, the defendant in the suit and had marked exs. A1 to A6 and after detailed discussion issue Nos. 1 to 4 had been answered and ultimately a preliminary decree was passed granting some time for redemption. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant had preferred the present appeal. ( 4 ) SRI Sita Ram, the learned Counsel representing Sri Sadasiva Reddy, had contended that the interest claimed is excessive, usurious and hit by Usurious loans Act since claiming compound interest at 18% per annum with yearly rests in the case of a secured debt in relation to immovable property security is per se usurious and the Court below should have granted simple interest at 18% per annum and had placed reliance on m. Ramachandra Reddy and others v. S. Rajaratnam Naidu, 1989 (1) ALT 265 and also C. Gouri Shankar Rao v. B. Venkatapayya Sons and Co. , AIR 1983 ap 310 . Except this ground, no other ground in fact had been raised. ( 5 ) SRI. R. V. Prasad, the learned counsel representing the respondent had contended that for invoking the provisions of USURIOUS LOANS ACT, 1918 several conditions are to be satisfied and unless such conditions are satisfied by placing necessary evidence, the defendant is not entitled to such relief at all. The learned Counsel also had submitted that mere taking a plea is of no consequence. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on State Bank of India v. Yasangi venkateswara Rao, 1999 (2) ALD (SCSN) 1 = (1999) 2 SCC 375 and also K. Venkata satyanarayana v. State Bank of India, 1974 (2) APLJ 85 - AIR 1975 AP 113 . ( 6 ) NOW the points for consideration in the present appeal are:- 1. Whether the claim of interest at 18% per annum with yearly rests in the present case is usurious and excessive? 2. Whether the judgment of the Court below is liable to be interfered with in relation to Issue Nos. l and 2? 3. To what relief? point Nos. 1 and 2 : ( 7 ) EXS. AL is the mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 8,000/- on 7-1-1972. As already specified supra, the mortgage deed had not been disputed at all. l and 2? 3. To what relief? point Nos. 1 and 2 : ( 7 ) EXS. AL is the mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 8,000/- on 7-1-1972. As already specified supra, the mortgage deed had not been disputed at all. Ex. A1 clearly provides for payment of interest at 18% per annum and it had been specifically provided for yearly rests in the event of default of payment of interest. It is also not in dispute that the defendant is not an agriculturist. The Court below on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the defendant had not whispered while giving evidence in the Court that the interest charged with yearly rests by the plaintiff is excessive or usurious and since no evidence was let in, in proof of the circumstances for holding that the rate of interest is excessive or usurious, Issue No. 2 was answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by the Court below. ( 8 ) IN Ginvar Prasad v, Ganeshlal saraogi, AIR 1949 FC 57, it was held as follows :-"in order to be entitled to the benefits of usurious LOANS ACT, 1918, 1918, the appellant must establish (1) that the interest payable on the loan is excessive and (2) that the transaction was as between the parties thereto substantially unfair. "in Godugula Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy v. Muthukumalli Venkata Subba Rao, lpa 69/68, the legal position had been summarised by this Court as follows:- 1. The Court can reopen the transaction and give appropriate relief in the matter of interest when the transaction is substantially unfair. 2. If the interest is excessive the Court shall presume the transaction is substantially unfair, but this is a rebuttable presumption. 3. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what is reasonable or excessive rate without reference to the several circumstances enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. 4. 3. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what is reasonable or excessive rate without reference to the several circumstances enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. 4. In determining whether the rate is excessive or not the Court has to taken into consideration the following circumstances: (a) The value of the security offered; (b) The financial condition of the debtor including the result of any prior transaction; (c) The known or probable risks in getting the repayment; (d) If compound interest is provided for the frequency of the period of calculation of interest; and (e) The advantage which the debtor reasonably expected to derive from the transaction. In the decision referred (supra), it was held that there can be no presumption that the charging of compound rate of interest is per se excessive, but the burden to establish that the interest is excessive lies on the bidder setting up a plea that the interest charged is usurious and that it is only when that is established the presumption under Explanation (1) to Section 3 (1) of usurious LOANS ACT, 1918, as amended by the madras Amendment Act, arises. In the decision referred (supra), it was held that it cannot be laid down as a rule of law that interest above a particular rate per se is penal or excessive and whether interest is penal or excessive is always a question of fact to be decided on the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the decision referred (supra), it was held that the award of interest at 18% per annum compound with annual rests is usurious in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the decision referred (supra), a matter relating to a banking transaction it was observed by the Apex Court at page 377 as follows:-"we also find it difficult to agree with the observation of the High Court that normally when a security is offered in the case of mortgage of property, charging of compound interest would be regarded as excess. Entering into a mortgage is a matter of contract between the parties. Entering into a mortgage is a matter of contract between the parties. If the parties agree that in respect of the amount advanced against a mortgage compound interest will be paid, we fail to understand as to how the Court can possibly interfere and reduce the amount of interest agreed to be paid on the loan so taken. The mortgaging of a property is with a view to secure the loan and has no relation whatsoever with the quantum of interest to be charged" ( 9 ) NOW coming to the facts of the case on hand, the appellant/defendant was examined as DW1 and I had carefully gone through the evidence of DW1. No where in the evidence of DW1 this aspect was touched and hence absolutely there is no evidence forthcoming on the part of the appellant/defendant to prove or to establish that the charging of interest relating to the suit transaction is usurious or excessive. The Court below had negatived the relief mainly on the ground that the appellant/ defendant had failed to discharge, the burden by not adducing any evidence in this regard. It is pertinent to note that mere taking of a plea is not sufficient and it is essential that as a fact the facts and circumstances are to be proved by the defendant on the aspect of the usurious or excessive nature of the interest charged. In the absence of any evidence in this regard it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the Court below is unsustainable in law. Hence, I do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the finding of the court below on the aspect of interest and accordingly the Point Nos. l and 2 are answered. Point No. 3: ( 10 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, the appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly the appeal is dismissed, with costs.