JUDGMENT 1. - Kishan Lal son of Jagannath (the appellant) has filed this appeal, under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 21-1-1987, passed by the learned District Judge, Bundi, in Civil Suit No. 6/86. The brief facts are as under. 2. On 19-4-1982, the plaintiff-respondent No. I had instituted the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, against the appellant, Nand Kishore (defendant No. 2) and Kishan Lal son of Prabhu Lal (defendant No. 3) for recovery of Rs. 1,15,679.99 p. The case set up in the plaint was as under. 3. On 17-4-1975, the appellant had taken from the plaintiff-Bank a loan in the sum of Rs. 34,000/- for purchase of a tractor, cultivator, thresher and air compressor and the said sum along with the insurance charges amounting to Rs. 1376.73 p. was paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the appellant, who had also taken from the plaintiff loan amount of Rs. 5468.70 p. in cash credit loan on 25-7-1975. The appellant took a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of loan from the plaintiff for purchase of a trolley, plough and harrow and the said sum was paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the appellant along with insurance charges of Rs. 196/-. The appellant had hypothecated the above said machinery/goods as security for repayment of the loans mentioned above and had hypothecated his crop for repayment of the loan amount taken in cash credit loan and had executed the necessary documents in this respect. The appellant also mortgages his land measuring 39 bighas 8 biswas situated in village Borda Mal Tehsil Keshorai Patan and executed the mortgage deed which was duly registered and this mortgage was created as security for repayment of the amounts of loan taken by the appellant from the plaintiff. The appellant had agreed to repay the loan amounts with interest at the rate of 151A2% per annum. Defendant. No. 2 Nand Kishore had furnished the guarantee of the appellant for repayment of the above said amounts taken by way of loan by the appellant. The appellant had agreed to repay the loan amounts with interest at the rate of 151A2% per annum. Defendant. No. 2 Nand Kishore had furnished the guarantee of the appellant for repayment of the above said amounts taken by way of loan by the appellant. It has been alleged that the amount was to be paid by way of instalments, but the loan amount had not been paid in accordance therewith and the appellant had been executing the revival letters confirming the loan amounts and the suit amount was due to the plaintiff from the appellant and that the defendant No. 2, being his guarantor, was also liable to pay the same, and the above said machinery hypothecated in favour of the plaintiff had been illegally handed over by the appellant to Kishan Lal defendant No. 3, who had no right to keep it as the plaintiff has the charge thereon. In these circumstances, it was prayed that a preliminary decree for the suit amount with pendente lite and future interest be passed and that, on non-payment thereof, the land mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff by the appellant and the above said machinery/goods in possession of the defendant No. 3 or any body's possession be ordered to be sold for recovery of the amount. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants. The appellant-defendant No. 1, in the written statement, denied having taken any loan from the plaintiff and stated the defendant No. 3, in conspiracy with the then Manager of the Branch of the plaintiff-bank, had got executed certain documents from the appellant and the machinery was in fact purchased by and for the defendant No. 3 who has been in possession thereof since beginning. He also denied that the defendant No. 2 was his guarantor for repayment of any loan amount. It was pleaded that the interest charged by the plaintiff was excessive. The suit was also contested on the ground that it was barred by time. The defendant No. 2 also denied his liability to pay any amount by way of guarantee or otherwise and also contested the suit on the ground that it was barred by time. It was pleaded that the interest charged by the plaintiff was excessive. The suit was also contested on the ground that it was barred by time. The defendant No. 2 also denied his liability to pay any amount by way of guarantee or otherwise and also contested the suit on the ground that it was barred by time. The defendant No. 3 admitted that the machinery/goods in question were in his possession, but pleaded that the appellant had given the said machinery/goods to him in consideration of the amount due to the defendant No. 3 from the appellant against a previous loan. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- 1- vk;k okni= esa vafdr leLr midj.k izfroknh dze&3 dks gh fnyok;s x;s Fks] vkSj oknhx.k ls rRdkyhu cSad eSustj o izfroknh ua0 3 dh feyhHkxr ls izfroknh ua0 1 ds uke ;g lkjk lkSnk cSukeh gqvk\ 2- vk;k izfroknh dze&1 ds fo:) nkok fe;kn ckgj gS\ 3- D;k okn fo:) izfroknh dze&2 Hkh vof/k e/; gS\ 4- D;k C;kt nj vR;f/kd yxkbZ xbZ gS\ 5- izfroknh dze&2 dk mRrjnkf;Ro fdruh jkf'k rd gS\ 6- vuqrks"k 5. After recording the evidence produced by the parties and hearing their learned counsel, the learned trial court decided the issues Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff-bank and against the appellant and defendant No. 2. The learned trial court found that the defendant No. 2 had not furnished any guarantee for repayment of the amount of loan taken by the appellant in the cash credit loan account and, as such, he was not liable to pay the same. In view of the above said findings, the learned trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the suit amount with costs and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 151/t% per annum and that the defendant No. I appellant and defendant No. 2 were jointly and severely liable to pay the entire amount to the plaintiff except that the defendant No. 2 was not liable for the amount due against the cash credit loan account, the liability for payment of which was only of appellant-defendant No. 1 and that the defendant No. 3 has no right to receive the hypothecated machinery/goods. Consequently, a preliminary decree for the suit amount with costs and pendente lite and future interest has been passed by the learned trial court directing the appellant-defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 to pay the same within a period of six months from the date of the decree, failing which, the plaintiff could move the court for sale of the land and the hypothecated machinery/goods for recovery of the amount in question. Hence this appeal by the defendant No. 1-Appellant. 6. During the pendency of the appeal, defendant No. 3-Kishan Lal son of Prabhulol, who had been imp pleaded as respondent No. 3 in this appeal, died and, as such, his widow Smt. Kailash Bai, his daughter Hemlata, his son I Mahesh Chand, his other daughter Saroj and his other son Mukesh were brought on record as his legal representatives as 3/1 to 3/5. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 8. Shri S.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No. 1, has assailed the finding of the learned trial court on issue No. 1 and has contended that the learned trial court erred in disbelieving the appellant, who had deposed that he had taken no loan, but his signatures had been taken on certain blank papers and he did not know the contents thereof as he was not knowing English language and, in fact, he had signed those papers in the Tehsil where he had gone to the defendant No. 3 for getting prepared some mutation papers. 9. From the record I find that the plaintiff-bank has proved on record revival letters Ex. 1 to Ex. 9 executed by the appellant, who had admitted his signatures thereon and the record further shows that the revival letters Ex. 2, Ex. 3, Ex. 5, Ex. 6, Ex. 8 and Ex. 9 were executed on 17-2-1981 whereas revival letters Ex. 1, Ex. 4 and Ex. 7 were executed on 23-6-1978, 17-3-1978 and 25- 6- 1978 respectively. The plaintiff also proved on record the hypothecation deeds executed by the appellant on 17-7-1975 and 23-7-1975 as Ex. 10 and Ex. 11 and the guarantee bonds as Ex. 12 and Ex. 13 jointly executed by the appellant and the defendant No. 2 in respect of the above said loan amounts. The plaintiff also proved on record mortgage deed Ex. The plaintiff also proved on record the hypothecation deeds executed by the appellant on 17-7-1975 and 23-7-1975 as Ex. 10 and Ex. 11 and the guarantee bonds as Ex. 12 and Ex. 13 jointly executed by the appellant and the defendant No. 2 in respect of the above said loan amounts. The plaintiff also proved on record mortgage deed Ex. 14 executed by the appellant in respect of the land in dispute and the signatures on these documents have been admitted by the appellant. The plaintiff also proved on record supplementary mortgage deed Ex. 15 for securing the above said amount and both these documents (Ex. 14 and Ex. 15) are also stated to have executed by the appellant who has admitted his signatures thereon. The record further shows that mortgage deeds Ex. 14 and Ex. 15 are registered documents and Ex. 14 is in Hindi language. The appellant has not explained in his statement as to how he signed these documents on different dates as the documents for mutation and what happened to that mutation. He has also not explained as to how did he execute the mortgage deeds above said specially when Ex. 14 was in Hindi language and no cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses who proved the execution of the documents was made to challenge their statements that the appellant had, signed these documents in consideration of the loan taken by him and that the defendant No. 2 had signed the guarantee bonds along with the appellant for repayment of the loan amounts. Considering all this evidence, I am of the view that the learned trial court rightly decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff-bank and, as such, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in this respect. 10. No other point has been raised before me. 11. Consequently, this appeal being without any merit, I dismiss it with costs.Appeal rejected. *******