JUDGMENT : In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and Decree dated 28.07.2008 passed in A.S.No.55 of 2007 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2007 passed in O.S.No.23 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Uthangarai. 2. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law. (i) Whether the respondent Bank is entitled to seek interest at the rate of 15% per annum construing the loan transaction as the one on mortgage when the respondent Bank itself admitted that the loan was granted for agricultural purpose and that only by way of security, the deposit of title deeds were made to the Bank and therefore, whether both the Courts below have erred in misconstruing the evidence with regard to loan transaction between the parties and thus the findings are perverse ? 3. Considering the scope of the controversy between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is not necessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 4. Suffice to state that the suit has been laid by the plaintiff for recovery of money based on the mortgage executed by the defendant in respect of the loan secured by the defendant from the plaintiff's Bank. 5. In support of the plaintiff's case as regards the availment of loan by the defendant from the plaintiff's Bank and the execution of the various documents in favour of the plaintiff with reference to the same, particularly, the creation of mortgage by depositing his title deeds etc., the plaintiff has placed acceptable and reliable materials. 6. The defendant in the written statement has not disputed the availment of the loan from the plaintiff's Bank. All that was resisted in the written statement is that the loan incurred by the defendant, being only for agricultural purpose accordingly, it is stated that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is excessive and thereby it is contended that the defendant is not bound to pay interest more than 9% per annum and accordingly prayed the court to dispose of the plaintiff's suit. 7. 7. The Courts below on the basis of the materials placed on record, finding acceptance with the plaintiff's case, however holding and considering the nature of the loan availed by the defendant being for agricultural purpose, accordingly on that footing, it is found that the first appellate court upholding the judgment and decree of the trial court disposed of the appeal preferred by the defendant by determining that the plaintiff's Bank is entitled to claim simple interest at 15% per annum till the date of the decree and subsequent interest at 6% and accordingly disposed of the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. Impugning the same, the present Second Appeal has been laid. 8. In this Second Appeal, the defendant has not placed any valid point to disturb the judgment and decree of the first appellate court as regards the point of interest. When it is found that the first appellate court taking note of the fact that the loan involved in the matter had been availed for agricultural purpose, accordingly, held that the plaintiff's Bank is entitled to seek interest at 15% per annum till the date of decree and subsequent interest at 6% per annum and accordingly disposed of the matter, the further, arguments projected that the interest claimed by the plaintiff's Bank is on the higher side as such cannot be accepted in any manner. The Courts below is found to have analyzed the nature of the loan and also the mortgage created by the defendant in respect of the same in favour of the plaintiff's Bank by depositing the title deeds and on that footing rightly held that the Bank is entitled to seek interest only at the rate of 15% per annum and when the above said determination of the Courts below is not shown to be erroneous at any angle and on the other hand when it is found that the Courts below had rightly fixed the quantum of interest to which the plaintiff' would be entitled to, considering the nature of the loan availed by the defendant, it is found that no interference is called for to the abovesaid determination of the Courts below. Accordingly, the substantial question of law formulated in the Second Appeal is answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. 9. In conclusion, the Second Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the substantial question of law formulated in the Second Appeal is answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. 9. In conclusion, the Second Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.