Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: draft document in Nageswara Ayyar vs M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar And Anr. on 16 October, 1934Matching Fragments
Inasmuch as various other persons 'whom I approached for obtaining a loan for the purpose of effecting improvements in my village and bringing them to a good state demanded a high rate of interest, and as there is stringency in the money market, I applied to you for a loan and you agreed to comply with my request in consideration of my interest. Hence I have of my free will consented to the aforesaid rate of interest of Rupees one and annas eight and executed this mortgage bond.
5. The evidence of the plaintiff and his agent P.W. 3 does not carry the story as to the insertion of this clause very far. They only say that that clause was found in the draft prepared by their vakil. There is some difference between the parties as to whether the draft was brought by the defendant himself or by the plaintiff and also whether the draft was returned to the defendant or not. But we do not think anything turns upon that. We are certainly not prepared to believe the defendant's story that he did not read the document before he signed or that he was assured that this was a formal clause not intended to be enforced. But it is significant that neither the plaintiff nor P.W. 3 says that any representation of the kind implied in this clause was made to either of them by defendant 1. It is somewhat difficult to understand why defendant 1 should have gone out of his way to ask the lawyer, who drafted the document, to put in this clause, because, if anything it is more to the interest of the plaintiff than to that of the defendant to have a clause of the kind. It is suggested that the lawyer, who drafted the document, might have put a question like that to defendant 1 and on receiving an answer from him in the affirmative, he might have put in that clause. We do not say that it is not possible but we have no evidence of that;, kind. There is however some force in the respondent's argument that it is not unlikely that defendant 1 would have attempted to raise loans in other quarters and he must have ultimately agreed to these terms because he could not obtain loans elsewhere. There is the undisputed fact that there was a delay of a month eft-two between the time when the loan was applied for and the time when the loan was ultimately advanced. Giving full effect to these considerations, there is no doubt that there is no basis for any suggestion of overreaching by the creditor.