Judgment : This is a defendant's second appeal. 2. Plaintiff sued the defendant for return of Rs.25,000/-together with 24% interest per annum from 22.12.2000 to 15.11.2004 on the footing of Ex.A1-Fixed Deposit Receipt as against agreed rate of interest at 30% p.a. There is exchange of notices between both. Since the amount was not paid, the suit has been laid for return of money. 3. The defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement. His principal defence is that as already he had closed the business in 2000 settling all the dues, no amount is due from him. Further, the interest claimed is also highly excessive. 4. The trial Court framed issues, tried the suit. Plaintiff Krishnagurusamy examined himself as P.W.1, marked Exs.A1 to A3, while defendant Lawrence examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B1 to B23. 5. The trial Court after hearing both sides and perusing the evidence, disbelieved the defendant's plea of discharge, scaled down the interest to 12% p.a and decreed the suit with 6% future interest. 6. In the circumstances, the defendant went to the next Court by way of A.S.No.34 of 2009. The learned Principal Sub-Judge, Nagercoil, agreed with the conclusions of the trial Court. However, took an odd decision to grant future interest at 9% p.a. 7. In the circumstances, the second appeal has been preferred by the defendant. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant made two fold attack. Firstly, the defendant being a money-lender, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Money-lenders Act, 1957, he can charge interest as prescribed by the Government. During the relevant period, the allowed rate of interest was only 12% p.a. Trial Court also ordered 12% interest p.a. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff had charged 30% interest. Therefore, pre-suit interest paid at the rate of 30% should be reduced to 12%, if that is calculated, almost the debt will be wiped out. 9. The other point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is, before the first appellate Court, there is neither cross-appeal nor cross-objection, by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has satisfied with the trial Court granting 6% future interest. However, the first appellate Court hiked the future interest to 9% per annum. This is unsustainable. 10. 9. The other point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is, before the first appellate Court, there is neither cross-appeal nor cross-objection, by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has satisfied with the trial Court granting 6% future interest. However, the first appellate Court hiked the future interest to 9% per annum. This is unsustainable. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the defendant indulged in the business of receiving deposits. Because, he offered attractive interest, plaintiff deposited his money. There was no corresponding security such as mortgage bond, bank guarantee etc. It was not established that the defendant is a money-lender, within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Money-Lenders Act, 1957. Now, without sufficient pleading and evidence, such a plea has been raised at this second appeal stage. 11. Secondly, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even as per the contract/Ex.A1, the plaintiff is allowed to charge 30% interest. In that view of the matter, even future interest was allowed only at the rate of 9%. 12. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions. Perused the materials on record, impugned judgments and gone through the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Money-Lenders Act, 1957. 13. Admittedly, under Ex.A1-Deposit Receipt dated 30.11.1997, defendant received Rs.25,000/-from the plaintiff. Admittedly, as per Ex.A1 the amount is to be repaid with 30% interest. Admittedly, up to 21.12.2000, the defendant had regularly paid the said agreed rate of interest. Now, from 22.12.2000 till the filing of the suit claiming 24% interest, plaintiff has sued the defendant. 14. Money lending is a good profit making business. All sorts of money transactions are involved in it. Money is pre-requisite for dabbling in money. To regulate moneylending and finance business, Tamil Nadu Money-Lenders Act, 1957, has been passed. Rules have been framed thereunder. As per the definition (See Section 7) money-lender is a person, doing business of advancing loan, but does not include a bank. As mentioned in the Act, the banks are Reserve Bank of India, Co-operative Banks and other approved banks and also approved Financial Institutions by the State by a Government notification. The consequence of a person getting licence under the Tamil Nadu Money-Lenders Act, 1957 is that he has to maintain books of accounts, he can charge only prescribed rate of interest, he is open to inspection by Revenue Authorities. 15. The consequence of a person getting licence under the Tamil Nadu Money-Lenders Act, 1957 is that he has to maintain books of accounts, he can charge only prescribed rate of interest, he is open to inspection by Revenue Authorities. 15. Referring to Ex.A1-Deposit Receipt, the appellant contended that the defendant is a moneylender. I have examined Ex.A1 with the assistance of both sides' counsel. Attractive words have been used by the defendant in Ex.A1, namely "Nanjinad Bankers" and within bracket it is "Government Registered". Naturally, even highly educated persons like plaintiff, a retired Cooperative Top Level Officer, have been lured by such juicy format. We may not be wood winked by such pretensions in Ex.A1. Because, some times they turned out to be a 'window dressing'. What is important is, it must set forth true facts such as register number, registered under the particular enactment. Ex.A1 is having a nice looking, but it has not been supported by required particulars both in pleadings and in evidence. Therefore, in view of such paucity of evidence, we cannot say that the defendant is one of the Government approved bankers in Kanniyakumari District. 16. Interest is an accretion to a known sum/certain sum/a liquidated amount. Such increase to such amount is expressed as interest. It is consideration, compensation for enjoying/withholding other man's money. Payment of interest is regulated under substantive Law consisting of agreement, any enactment, such as Contract Act. In other cases, Interest Act will apply. Now, in this case, under Ex.A1, the contract rate of interest is 30%. 17. In a suit 'interest' arises under different stages. Namely during the period prior to the filing of the suit and up to the filing of the suit. It is a matter of adjudication based on the substantive law or based on the Interest Act. Now in this case, the trial Court had adjudicated interest at 12% p.a. The period after filing the suit till the judgment is called 'interim interest', 'interregnum interest', 'pendente lite interest'. The interest for the period from the date of judgment till realisation, is called 'interest on judgment' or 'future interest' or 'subsequent interest'. 18. Now in this case, so far as the future interest is concerned, the trial Court granted only 6% interest p.a. The plaintiff is satisfied with this rate of future interest. He did not appeal as against it. 18. Now in this case, so far as the future interest is concerned, the trial Court granted only 6% interest p.a. The plaintiff is satisfied with this rate of future interest. He did not appeal as against it. He did not prefer any cross-appeal or cross-objection, when the defendant filed the first appeal in A.S.No.30 of 2000. However, without asking, the first appellate Court was gracious enough to give 9% future interest to the plaintiff. This is unsustainable in Law. 19. In the circumstances, this second appeal partly succeeds. The judgment of the first appellate Court is modified with respect to future interest namely 6% per annum instead of 9% per annum and the trial Court's judgment is restored. Both the parties will bear their respective costs of second appeal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.