Sir Francis Maclean, Kt., C.J.

1. The rate of interest in this case is exorbitant, but theparties have made their own bargain, and I do not see upon what principle wecan make a fresh bargain for them. There are no circumstances in this case ofoppression, or undue influence, nor any equitable considerations which wouldgive us a right to interfere upon the ground that the bargain was anunconscionable one. Much reliance has been plated on the judgment of Mr.Justice Rampini in the case of Kali Nath Sen v. Trilokhya Nath Roy: 26 C. 315 : 3 C.W.N. 194 : 13 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 805, wherehe says that under circumstances such as the present, a fresh contrast most beregarded as having been entered into between the landlord and the purchaser. Iam unable to concur in this view.

2. The appeal must be allowed and the appellant must haveinterest up to the date of the suit at 75 per cent per annum after that dateuntil realisation.

3. We make no order as to costs either of this Court or ofthe Courts below.

B.G. Geidt, J.

I concur.

.

Narendra Nath Sarkarvs. Moniruddi Howladar(14.08.1903 - CALHC)