1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage-bond and the only question is the amount of interest which the plaintiff is entitled to recover. The bond provided interest at 24 per cent. per annum. The Courts below have granted the plaintiff a decree on the basis of interest at 12 per cent. per annum. The finding of the lower Appellate Court is, that there was substantial security for the can and consequently interest at 24 per cent. per annum is too high and unconscionable. It has further been found that the creditor was in a position to dominate the will of his borrower, and that the plaintiff-appellant, has been unable to discharge the burden thrown upon him by Clause (3) of Section 16 of the Contract Act and show that the stipulation for interest was not induced by undue influence. On these findings we think the decree of the lower Appellate Court must be upheld. The present case is a very different case from the cases similar to the cases of Bejoy Kumar Aidya v. Satish Chandra Ghose 56 Ind. Cas. 1007 : 24 C.W.N. 444 at P. 448. It is not a casa where a Court has reduced the contract rate of interest solely on the ground that it is hard and unconscionable. In the case cited such an order was reversed, though the lower Court had held that the stipulation for interest was hard and uncontained able since there was not the further important feature that the money-lender was in a position to dominate the will of the borrower. We are not prepared to hold that the decision of the lower Court that the interest at 24 per cent. per annum when the loan was granted on substantial security, is act a rate that can properly be described as hard and unconscionable We are not inclined to interfere with these findings sitting as a Court fecund appeal circa we interfere with the findings that the creditor was in position to dominate the will of the borrower who was his servant and the further finding that the plaintiff has not proved that the contract was not induced by undue influence. We hold that, on the findings, the decision of the lower Appellate Court is correct and this appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.