( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 challenging the portion of decree whereby sale deed executed in their favour by Jagdish Singh has been held to be ineffective in view of the property charged with the Bank on the date of execution of sale deed. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are as under :-- That respondent No. 1-Bank filed a civil suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,53,046/ -. Jitendra Singh, defendant No. 1 has borrowed the money to purchase a Matador F-307 for transporting goods in carriage on hire and for carrying out a business of transport operator. This application was for self employment. The said vehicle was hypothecated with the bank and it was jointly insured. Jagdish Singh stood as a guarantor and according to the plaintiff the property in dispute was charged under Section 5 of the M. P. Krishi Udhar pravartan Tatha Prakiran Upabandha (Bank) Adhiniyam, 1972 (Act No. 32 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as "adhiniyam, 1972" ). The prescribed form was executed by Jagdish Singh. This form is provided under the Rules known as the Madhya pradesh Krishi Udhar Pravartan Tatha Prakiran Upabandha (Bank) Niyam, 1974 and the guarantor form is given as Form v and the declaration is given under Rule 4 of the Niyam which is known as "form of declaration". ( 3 ) PLAINTIFF has admitted that the loan was not for agricultural purposes but was provided to debtor under the self employment scheme to carry out his business of transportation. The said form is exhibited as ex. P-31. This form was executed on 10-12-87. In this form following lands of Village Survaya were kept as a charge by Jagdish Singh husband of respondent No. 3 Girija Devi. He has mortgaged 5. 612 hectares of land in Village Survaya, District shivpuri. The description of lands are shown in Paragraph 4 (d) of the plaint. The following seventeen survey numbers are included in said form of declaration which are reproduced below :- Krishi Bhoomi Ka Survey No. Area Hectare Mein Bhumiswami Lagaan Vishesh Rin Pus- 174 0-732 Jagdish 6. He has mortgaged 5. 612 hectares of land in Village Survaya, District shivpuri. The description of lands are shown in Paragraph 4 (d) of the plaint. The following seventeen survey numbers are included in said form of declaration which are reproduced below :- Krishi Bhoomi Ka Survey No. Area Hectare Mein Bhumiswami Lagaan Vishesh Rin Pus- 174 0-732 Jagdish 6. 31/ Kul Bhag 1 175 0-115 Singh Survey Kramank 212476 176 0-063 " " " 177 0-428 " " " 178 0-063 " " " 180 0-711 " " " 181 0-710 " " " 182 0-052 " " " 183 0-188 " " " 184 0-282 " " " 185 0-345 " " " 186 0-617 " " " 187 0-052 " " " 190 0-355 " " " 191 0-460 " " " 192 0-115 " " " 194 1-024 " " " ? 17 5-612 ( 4 ) IN the plaint it is mentioned that the properties were mortgaged on 13-6-87 but the declaration form discloses the date as 10-12-87. Trial court relying upon the document has held that Jagdish Singh was guarantor of debtor Jitendra Singh and has recorded a finding in issue no. 2 that Jagdish Singh has placed his property under charge in lieu of loan. Appellants have challenged this finding pertaining to mortgage of property. The appellants contended that they have purchased the said property from the deceased Jagdish Singh on 12-10-88 by the registered deed of sale. According to the appellants the said property was not mortgaged with the Bank nor there was any charge on the property. Appellants contended that since this loan is not an agricultural loan, therefore, provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972 will not be applicable in this case. The declaration (Ex. P-31) is not a mortgage deed and the Trial Court has committed an error in treating the said declaration as mortgage deed. Even by this document it can not be deemed that by this document charge on the property is created in favour of the Bank. He invited attention of the Court to the provisions of Adhiniyam and submitted that this Act is enacted for facilitating adequate flow of credit for agricultural production and development through banks and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. He invited attention of the Court to the provisions of Adhiniyam and submitted that this Act is enacted for facilitating adequate flow of credit for agricultural production and development through banks and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. He submitted that since this is not an agricultural loan, the provisions of Adhiniyam will not be applicable and therefore, the finding that lands were mortgaged by Jagdish Singh is perverse, contrary to law and deserves to be set aside. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for respondent-Bank submitted that there is no objection by defendants in their written statement pertaining to nature of transaction of loan and no objection was raised by the defendants regarding declaration (Ex. P-31 ). In the absence of any objection that the said document (Ex. P-31) is not a document of mortgage, the plaintiff's suit has rightly been decreed. In the alternative Counsel for bank submitted that on the deposit of sale deed from said Jagdish singh, the property be treated to be mortgaged under equitable mortgage. ( 6 ) NOW the only question of law involved in the case is whether the document (Ex. P-31) which is a declaration can be treated as a deed of mortgage or property charged for security of loan. ( 7 ) WE have heard contentions of the rival parties. ( 8 ) IN this case plaintiffs have come forward with a case that loan was granted to defendant No. 1 Jagdish Singh to purchase Matador for carrying on business of transportation and obtaining transport operator permission. The loan was granted under self employment scheme. While the loan was granted to Jitendra Singh, deceased Jagdish Singh, husband of defendant No. 2 Girija Devi stood as guarantor and has mortgaged his property mentioned in Ex. P-31 to Bank under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. Only question which is to be determined whether the said declaration can be termed as a mortgage considering the nature of loan transaction. ( 9 ) THE intention of Adhiniyam, 1972 is to facilitate adequate flow of credit of agricultural production and development through banks and other institutional credit agencies and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The word "agriculture" is defined in Section 2 (a)of the Adhiniyam. ( 9 ) THE intention of Adhiniyam, 1972 is to facilitate adequate flow of credit of agricultural production and development through banks and other institutional credit agencies and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The word "agriculture" is defined in Section 2 (a)of the Adhiniyam. The definition is reproduced below :- (a) "agriculture" shall include making land fit for cultivation, cultivation of land, improvement of land including development of sources of irrigation, raising and harvesting of crops, horticulture, forestry, planting and farming, cattle breeding, animal husbandry, dairy farming, seed farming, pisciculture, apiculture, sericulture, piggery, poultry farming and such other activities as are generally carried on by cultivators, dairy farmers, cattle breeders, poultry farmers and other categories of persons engaged in similar activities including marketing of agricultural products, their storage and transport and the acquisition of implements and machinery in connection with any such activity and the expression "agricultural purpose" and "agriculture product" shall be construed accordingly. Thus any loan for the purpose mentioned in the definition of Section 2(a) will fall within the ambit of this Adhiniyam. Counsel for respondent submitted that loan granted for transportation will also fall within the ambit of agricultural activities and the definition of word "agriculture" is defined in the Adhiniyam. A bare reading of the definition makes it clear that loan is for facilitating farming to farmers and other categories of persons engaged in similar activities including marketing of agricultural products, their storage and transport and the acquisition of implements and machinery in connection with any such activity and the expression "agricultural purpose" and "agricultural production" shall be construed accordingly. ( 10 ) IN our opinion, as pleaded in the plaint, the said loan is neither for agricultural purpose nor will fall under the definition of agricultural products. The loan is simply for transportation of goods on hire. As such provisions of Adhiniyam will not be applicable to loan in this case. The loan was given for the business of transportation of goods. Section 3 of the Adhiniyam further throws light on the nature of loan and rights of agriculturists to alienate land or interest in the land in favour of banks. It is provided in the Adhiniyam that agriculturist has right to alienate land or interest therein for obtaining financial assistance from the banks. Section 3 of the Adhiniyam further throws light on the nature of loan and rights of agriculturists to alienate land or interest in the land in favour of banks. It is provided in the Adhiniyam that agriculturist has right to alienate land or interest therein for obtaining financial assistance from the banks. Section 3-A further provides that the bank making loan to an agriculturist, who has been provided with "bhoo-Adhikar Avam Rin pustika" prescribed under Section 114-A of the Madhya Pradesh Land revenue Code, 1959 shall enter all transactions of loan, advances and recoveries, thereof in the said Bhoo Adhikar Avam Rin Pustika. Section 4 further provides the charge on crop and other movable property in favour of bank and under Section 5 it is provided that for the aforesaid loans charge shall be created in the land in favour of bank by declaration and declaration is to be made under Rule 4 in the Form V of the Niyam of 1974. ( 11 ) SINCE the plaintiffs have admitted that the said loan was not for agricultural purpose or business connected to agriculture, the property mentioned in Ex. P-31 can not be deemed to be mortgaged under the provisions of said Adhiniyam as the loan does not fall under the category of agricultural loan. Therefore, finding of the Trial Court on issue No. 2 that by the declaration the properties were mortgaged by jagdish Singh is not correct. Even otherwise, if the said loan was agricultural loan then the plaintiff has a remedy to recover the same under Section 11 of the Adhiniyam but plaintiff-Bank has not decided to recover the amount under Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 as loan is not an agricultural loan. Therefore, we hold that the Trial Court has committed grave error in holding that lands were kept under charge for security of loan by Jagdish Singh. The finding on the issue no. 2 is set aside. Other findings have not been challenged. The appellants were formal parties before the Trial Court. They have been impleaded as party as they had purchased suit lands from Jagdish singh in the year 1988 and they have been impleaded as defendant nos. 3 and 4 as their possession was over the charged property under the said declaration. ( 12 ) SUIT for recovery of sum due has not been filed against the appellant. They have been impleaded as party as they had purchased suit lands from Jagdish singh in the year 1988 and they have been impleaded as defendant nos. 3 and 4 as their possession was over the charged property under the said declaration. ( 12 ) SUIT for recovery of sum due has not been filed against the appellant. The suit is filed under Order 34 of the Code of Civil procedure for recovery of loan by sale of mortgaged property. Since we have held that by the said declaration (Ex. P-31), the property was not kept as a charge/mortgage towards security of loan, therefore, the order for selling the property is set aside. We have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the Bank that Jagdish Singh has deposited the title deed with the Bank and thereby Jagdish Singh has created equitable mortgage under Section 58 (f) of the Transfer of property Act. Bank has not pleaded that there was an equitable mortgage by Jagdish singh of his property in favour of Bank. In the absence of pleading and proof regarding equitable mortgage the contention of the Bank that properties were under equitable mortgage can not be accepted. ( 13 ) REMAINING amount can be recovered by the Bank from borrower or their legal representatives and the guarantor in accordance with law. The decree is modified to that extent. Appeal succeeds in part. There shall be no order as to costs. .