JUDGMENT Mukerji J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for money brought by the respondent against the appellant on foot of a sarkhat executed by defendant 1, who is the father of the other defendants. The sarkhat is dated 6th April 1920 and purports to bear interest at 10 annas per cent per mensem. According to the terms of the sarkhat the money lent had been paid in cash, but it turned out that it was a balance of money lent before. One of the pleas that was urged in the Court below was that as the sarkhat did not bear any stamp it was not good as an acknowledgment, and the suit should be dismissed on that ground. The learned Subordinate Judge held that there was an agreement to pay interest, and therefore the document was an agreement, and accordingly he levied the stamp duty and penalty, and treating the document as an agreement decreed the suit. The Court below made a decree against the sons also but only to the extent of the family property in the hands of the father and did not make the minors personally liable. In this Court it was urged on behalf of the defendants that this case fell within our decision in Girdhari Lal v. Firm Bishan Chand AIR 1932 All 461. In that case however there was no agreement to pay interest, and it was a case therefore which could be easily distinguished from the case before us. On the other hand, this case is similar to the case of Prahlad Prasad v. Bhagwan Das AIR 1927 All 677.
2. It is conceded before us that the previous loans were not time-barred at the date when the present document was executed. The fact that the amount advanced was stated to have been advanced in cash and the fact that there was a promise to pay interest, go to show that it was the intention of the parties that the sarkhat should be a fresh transaction, namely, a transaction by which a certain amount of money was to be repaid with a certain amount of interest. We think that the Court below was right in treating the document as an agreement. The next point that was urged was as to the liability of the sons. The sons arc liable only to the extent of the family property in the hands of the father in the absence of any proof that the money was borrowed for immoral and illegal purposes. The decree that has been made against them does not burden the minors with greater liability than they are under the law. The result is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. There is a cross-objection because the Court below has omitted to grant to the plaintiff interest pending the litigation. This was only a pure omission due to oversight. We modify the decree of the Court below to this extent and to this extent only that the plaintiff will get interest at 6 per cent per annum on the entire sum decreed from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of realization. The respondent will have the costs of his cross-objection.