JUDGMENT Honble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—List has been revised. Learned counsel for the parties are not present. 2. As the Second Appeal is an old one being of the year 1976, the Court is proceeding to pass appropriate orders on merits of the Second Appeal. 3. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent filed a Suit against the defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs. 952/- on the basis of ‘Sarkhat’. 4. It was, inter alia, alleged by the plaintiff­respondent in the said Suit that the defendant-appellant took loan of Rs. 700/- on 1.6.1968 on payment of interest @ Rs. 1% per month; and that in lieu of the said loan, the defendant-appellant executed a ‘Sarkhat’; and that despite demands, nothing was paid by the defendant­appellant, and hence the Suit. 5. The said Suit was registered as Original Suit No. 105 of 1971. 6. The defendant-appellant contested the said Suit. 7. The defendant-appellant denied having taken Rs. 700/­ from the plaintiff-respondent as loan. The defendant­appellant further denied the execution of the ‘Sarkhat’. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following Issues : (1) Whether the Sarkhat in question had been executed by the defendant on 1.6.68, and it bears his signatures, in lieu of Rs. 700.00 borrowed by him as alleged? (2) To what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 9. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. 10. By the judgment and order dated 30.9.1974, the Trial Court decreed the said Suit with costs for recovery of Rs. 700 with interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount with effect from 1.6.1968 till the date of payment. 11. As regards Issue No.1, the Trial Court held that the defendant-appellant had taken Rs. 700/- as loan on 1.6.1968 from, the plaintiff-respondent, and that in lieu of the said loan, the defendant-appellant executed the Sarkhat’. 12. As regards Issue No. 2, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to a decree for Rs. 700/- with interest @ 6% per annum. 13. Against the said judgment and decree dated 30.9.1974 passed by the Trial Court, the defendant-appellant filed an Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1975. 14. By the judgment and order dated 23.7.1976, the Lower Appellate Court partly allowed the said Appeal and modified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as under : "The plaintiff’s suit for recovery of Rs. 14. By the judgment and order dated 23.7.1976, the Lower Appellate Court partly allowed the said Appeal and modified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as under : "The plaintiff’s suit for recovery of Rs. 700/­ from the defendant-appellant is decreed with proportionate costs. Pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs. 6/- per cent per annum is allowed on the principal sum of Rs. 700 only.” 15. The Lower Appellate Court, inter alia, held that the decree of the Trial Court in-so-far as it awarded interest @ Rs. 6% per annum from the date of loan, i.e., 1.6.1968 deserved to be set-aside. The Lower Appellate Court, inter alia, further held that the plaintiff­respondent would only be entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the same rate, i.e., Rs. 6% per annum. 16. Thereafter, the defendant-appellant filed the present Second Appeal. 17. By the order dated 20.10.1976, the Second Appeal was admitted. 18. As the present Second Appeal was admitted by the order dated 20.10.1976, it would be governed by the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stood prior to its substitution by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 in view of the provisions of Section 97(2)(m) of the said Amendment Act. 19. It further appears that a cross-objection has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff- respondent in so far as the Lower Appellate Court modified the decree of the Trial Court. 20. I have perused the record. 21. In my opinion, the Courts below on a consideration of the evidence on record have recorded findings of fact on the question of giving of loan by the plaintiff­respondent to the defendant-appellant and the execution of ‘Sarkhat’ by the defendant-appellant in lieu of the said loan. No illegality or perversity has been committed by the Courts below in recording the said findings. 22. I am further of the opinion that the Lower Appellate Court rightly modified the decree of the Trial Court. No illegality has been committed by the Lower Appellate Court in this regard. 23. In view of the above, the Second Appeal lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, the Second Appeal filed by the defendant-appellant is dismissed with costs. Further, the Cross-Objections filed by the plaintiff-respondent are dismissed with costs. ————