1. The appellant in this case was sued on a handnote executed by him in favour of the respondent for the sum of Rs. 380 'with interest at 2 1/2 percent', the stipulation as to interest stopping short at the rate, and there being nothing expressly stated in the document as to whether the interest should be calculated annually or monthly or otherwise. In the Court below evidence was admitted to show that the words used meant that the interest should be calculated monthly.
2. The contention before us on appeal is shortly this, that, as the ambiguity regarding interest in the document is a patent ambiguity, the evidence referred to above ought hot, under Section 93 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, to have been admitted at all.
3. In Mahomed Shamsooddeen v. Munshi Abdool Hug (1864) W.R. 379 it was held by this Court that, where a note of hand promised re-payment of a loan with interest at 5 per cent, without stating either per mensem or per annum, the construction that interest must be calculated without reference to time was contrary to all practice, and the ambiguity was one which might fairly be explained by previous transactions between the parties and by custom. This case, if it is any authority, at all, is obviously in point; but, as the learned Vakil for the appellant has pointed out, it was decided before the enactment of the Indian Evidence Act. We believe, however, that the Evidence Act made no change whatever in the law on the subject, and we are of opinion that there is no sufficient reason for coming to a different decision in this case. In our view the words '2 1/2 per cent' in the bond before us clearly meant 2 1/2 per cent per mensem. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.