Honble TATIA, J.–This first appeal is against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30.9.2002 passed in Civil Original Suit No.10/91 whereby the trial court decreed the suit of the plainiff Mool Chand against defendants Smt. Sukhi Bai, Smt. Bheri and Smt. Gunvanti for Rs.68,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum with the direction to the plaintiff to return the pledged goods to the defendants on receipt of the above amount of Rs.68,000/-. (2). Brief facts of the case are that according to the plaint allegation, one Chhagan Lal, for his business need, took loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.5.1988. For that purpose, said Chhagan Lal sent her daughter-defendant No.3 Gunvanti for taking loan amount from the plaintiff, after giving gold ornaments as securing for refund of the loan amount and interest. Said Gunvanti gave 24 tolas of gold ornaments to the plaintiffs, details of which is given in the plaint itself and took Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs own case, the plaintiff did not test the gold ornaments and without much enquiry, he put all the gold articles in one iron-box and called two witnesses Madan Lal and Hazari and after stitching the said iron-box in cloth cover, sealed it. Thereafter, on 17.5.1988, the defendant No.3 wrote slip about taking of loan on condition of re-payment of loan with interest thereon @ 1.50% per month. Subsequent to that, said Chhagan Lal died. The plaintiff asked the defendants for repayment of the loan amount and interest and take back the gold ornaments. The defendants did not pay a single penny to the plaintiff. Thereupon, the plaintiff served a registered notice upon the defendants through his Advocate on 2.5.1991. Even after notice, the defendants did not re-pay the loan amount and interest and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.50,000/- and interest @ 12% instead of 18% p.a. amounting to Rs. 18,000/-, in total Rs.68,000/- only in place of Rs.77,000/-. The plaintiff also prayed that decree may be granted for payment of Rs.68,000/- and interest and upon which the plaintiff will return the pledged goods to the defendants. The plaintiff further prayed the interest pendantelite. (3). The defendants submitted written statement and admitted taking of loan of Rs.50,000/- on interest @1.50% per month. The plaintiff also prayed that decree may be granted for payment of Rs.68,000/- and interest and upon which the plaintiff will return the pledged goods to the defendants. The plaintiff further prayed the interest pendantelite. (3). The defendants submitted written statement and admitted taking of loan of Rs.50,000/- on interest @1.50% per month. The defendants further submitted that since deceased Chhagan Lal was sick at that time and was in need of money, therefore, on his instructions, defendant No.3 was sent by Chhagan Lal for giving gold articles to the plaintiff and he also asked that the account may be opened in the name of defendant No.3. When gold articles were delivered by defendant No.3 to the plaintiff, the defendant No.3 tested gold articles and also after taking weight of the articles, opened the account of loan of defendant No.3. In the account book, he mentioned the correct weight of the gold articles also and thereafter, the plaintiff gave Rs.50,000/- to defendant No.3. It is submitted that the plaintiff wrongly stated that he did not examine the gold articles nor he weighed them. The defendants denied that the alleged witnesses Madan Lal and Hazari were present there and they put their signatures over the sealed cloth of the iron-box. The defendants submitted that the written slip which was signed by defendant No.3, was interpolated by inserting a few lines which are inserted purposefully to create evidence. When above fact came to the knowledge of the defendants, the defendants had reason to doubt that the plaintiff must have changed the gold ornaments The defendants very specifically stated that in case the plaintiff will deliver the gold ornaments, they are ready to pay the entire due amount to the plaintiff. (4). In the trial court issues were framed which include, whether at the instructions of Chhagan Lal, defendant No.3 took loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.5.1988 and handed over gold ornaments to the plaintiff in security of repayment of the loan ? whether the weight of gold ornaments were written by assessment and not by actual weight ? whether the box containing the gold articles was sealed in presence of defendant No.3 and it was not tempered with? whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for Rs.50,000/-with interest @ 12% per annum amount to Rs. 18,000/-? whether the weight of gold ornaments were written by assessment and not by actual weight ? whether the box containing the gold articles was sealed in presence of defendant No.3 and it was not tempered with? whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for Rs.50,000/-with interest @ 12% per annum amount to Rs. 18,000/-? whether defendant No. 3 herself executed letter dated 17.5.1988 on her own behalf as well as on behalf of Chhagan Lal about liability of Rs.50,000/- and its payment with interest @ 18% per annum? whether the document dated 17.5.1988 is as it is as it was written? (5). The plaintiff gave his statement as PW-1 and produced witness Madan Lal as PW-2. Defendant No.3 alone gave her statement. The documentary evidence was also produced by the plaintiff. (6). The trial court held that since defendant No.3s signature was on Ex.1, the disputed slip written by defendant No.3 and above that the disputed language is mentioned, therefore, defendant No.3 must have signed the document after certain lines are added in Ex.1. The trial court did not accept the defendants contention that certain lines were added subsequently after signing of the document by defendant No.3 in Ex.1. The trial court, therefore, held that the plaintiff is entitled to decree for Rs.68,000/- as claimed by the plaintiff with interest @ 6% per annum. Hence this first appeal. (7). The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that it is true that Chhagan Lal took loan of Rs.50,000/- and that too on interest @ 18% per annum. Defendant No.3, the daughter of Chhagan Lal, on instructions of Chhagan Lal, went to collect loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and handed over gold ornaments to the plaintiff and brought Rs.50,000/-. At the time of handing over gold articles, the plaintiff weighed the gold articles and recorded the weight of the gold articles separately for each article. Total gold articles were of 24 tolas and the defendants were and are ready to re-pay the loan amount to the plaintiff but the plaintiff is bound to return the goods of the defendants. At the time of handing over gold articles, the plaintiff weighed the gold articles and recorded the weight of the gold articles separately for each article. Total gold articles were of 24 tolas and the defendants were and are ready to re-pay the loan amount to the plaintiff but the plaintiff is bound to return the goods of the defendants. But in this case, the plaintiff who is gold- smith by-caste as well as by profession and who is a money lander, changed the gold articles and, therefore, only he has filed the suit for recovery of the amount so as to recover the amount from the defendants with heavy interest and that too by keeping real gold articles with himself. The defendants are ladies and the plaintiff who is money lender and trader, who has forged and fabricated and interpolated the document executed by the defendant-lady and has created oral evidence also, cannot be believed. It is also submitted that Ex.-1 the slip written by the plaintiff himself in his own handwriting, is written in the Marwari language with equal distance between two lines. Thereafter, all of sudden, three lines comes on documents in good Hindi language, which is entirely different language written in the same document and also in continuation. The ink is different and distance between the lines subsequently inserted also, is much less than the distance which is in between the lines written in the Marwari language. There is no explanation of the plaintiff or his witnesses how it happened and the trial court merely on the basis of admission of the signature of defendant No.3 below this language, held that defendant No.3 must have signed the document after writing of the document in two different languages and in two different manner. (8). The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the court below failed to appreciate that in civil cases, the conduct of the parties also can be looked into and in this case, the trial court has ignored this material fact that the plaintiff who is gold-smith by profession and is money lender, stated in the plaint that he did not examine the gold nor he weighed the gold and advanced Rs.50,000/- to a lady that too in the year 1988, then whether this fact itself can be believed. There is no explanation why the businessman did so. There is no explanation why the businessman did so. Coupled with this fact, the interpolation in document clearly shows that the plaintiff-respondent wants to cheat the appellant-defendants only. The learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out that there are contradictions in the statement of the plaintiff and the plaintiffs witnesses. The plaintiff in examination-in- chief, stated that when the plaintiff tried to get the ornaments checked so as to find out that the ornaments were of gold or not, defendant No. 3 did not allow him to do so. Even then, according to the plaintiff, he advanced the loan to defendant-lady. The plaintiff in cross-examination admitted that he is by profession goldsmith and doing the business of making silver items. He stated that he is not making the gold ornaments. The statement of the plaintiff, on the face of it, clearly reveals that the plaintiff has full knowledge that the articles which were handed over by defendant No.3 are not lying in the said box and, therefore, to cheat defendant, he stated that despite his insistence, the defendant did not allow the plaintiff to test the gold of the gold articles and the plaintiff did not weight the ornaments. It cannot be believed that a gold-smith having weight equipments of gold articles, will not weight the gold articles and will hand over the amount of Rs.50,000/- to a lady. The plaintiff also challenged the presence of witnesses Madan Lal and Hazari. The plaintiff stated that Madan Lal and Hazari came at his place for sale transaction of his house but that statement is false statement. Not only that, the said witnesses were created by the plaintiff because of his having long standing relations with the defendants. The plaintiffs statement about the witness Madan Lal clearly shows that he was also an obliging person to the plaintiff only. Madan Lal in his cross-examination, admitted that his house was mortgaged with the plaintiff Mool Chand. The plaintiffs own witness Madan Lal in his cross-examination, admitted that the gold articles were weighed by the plaintiff Mool Chand and thereby contradicted plaintiffs statement. He also admitted that the ornaments were of gold, however, he stated thereafter that the articles were not tested because defendant No.3 did not allow testing of the gold ornaments. (9). The plaintiffs own witness Madan Lal in his cross-examination, admitted that the gold articles were weighed by the plaintiff Mool Chand and thereby contradicted plaintiffs statement. He also admitted that the ornaments were of gold, however, he stated thereafter that the articles were not tested because defendant No.3 did not allow testing of the gold ornaments. (9). The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Loonkaran Sethia etc. vs. Mr. Ivan E. John and others etc. ( AIR 1977 SC 336 ), wherein Honble the Supreme Court held that effect of making an alteration in document without the consent of the party bound is exactly the same as that of cancelling the deed. In the case in hand, it is clear that Ex.1 has been materially altered by the plaintiff without the consent of the defendants. It is submitted that the plaintiff is bound to re-deliver the pledged goods and without re-delivery of pledged goods, the plaintiff cannot get the decree for repayment of the money, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Lallan Prasad vs. Rahmat Ali and another ( AIR 1967 SC 1322 ). Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is of this Court delivered in the case of Khusiram vs. Swaroop Narayan ( 1989 WLN (UC) 332) wherein it has been held that in a case where the goods were pledged with the creditor and the promissory note was also executed by the borrower, then this Court held that Pawnee would not be entitled to a decree on the basis of the promissory note. By that he would retain the goods of the borrower and will also have the money advanced by the creditor to the borrower. (10). The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the Privy Council in the case of Kessarbai vs. Jethabhai Jivan (AIR 1928 Privy Council 277) held that mere comparison of admitted signatures without expert advice or microscopic examination is dangerous. (10). The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the Privy Council in the case of Kessarbai vs. Jethabhai Jivan (AIR 1928 Privy Council 277) held that mere comparison of admitted signatures without expert advice or microscopic examination is dangerous. For the same proposition, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court delivered in the case of Saurendra Mohan Basu vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar ( AIR 1961 Calcutta 461) wherein it has been held that while it is competent on the part of a Judge or a Magistrate to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures for himself, it is unsafe to rely entirely on such personal comparison. The same was the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagwan Din vs. Gouri Shanker & another (AIR 1957 Allahabad 119). (11). Contesting, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the defendants admitted taking loan of Rs.50,000/- . The plaintiff is ready to re-deliver the goods which were handed over to the plaintiff by defendant No.3. The plaintiff produced the articles in the court and also produced the documentary evidence to prove that the loan was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants and the defendant gave certain articles which were sealed in the presence of the defendant No.3 herself and in the presence of two witnesses. The seal was opened in the court and the defendant did not prove that the articles which were produced in the court were not of the defendant. The defendant No.3 did not produce her own mother in the court who could have identified the goods. It is also submitted that when defendant herself did not permit the plaintiff to test the gold of the ornaments then she cannot dispute that the articles were of gold or not. The plaintiff advanced the money on the goods which were given to the plaintiff by defendant No.3 herself and as per practice, they were put in box and were sealed in the presence of defendant No.3 herself and the plaintiff offered box to the defendant for re-payment of loan and interest. The plaintiff advanced the money on the goods which were given to the plaintiff by defendant No.3 herself and as per practice, they were put in box and were sealed in the presence of defendant No.3 herself and the plaintiff offered box to the defendant for re-payment of loan and interest. Whatever articles which have been given by the defendant, could have been claimed by the defendant from the plaintiff and the defendant cannot claim different articles from the plaintiff in lieu of repayment of money advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant. It is also submitted that the defendants signature on Ex.1 is after the entire language written in Ex.1 and, therefore, there cannot arise any question of interpolation of Ex.1. It is also submitted that the signatures of the witnesses are also there on the outer- cover of the box and, therefore, the presence of the witnesses cannot be denied and disputed by the defendant. (12). I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record also. (13). According to the plaintiff, the loan was advanced for the business need of deceased Chhagan Lal. The defendant No.3 came to collect the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and advancement of loan on pledge of gold articles, the plaintiffs statement is that he insisted for testing of gold of gold articles but defendant did not allow him to do so. The plaintiffs statement before the court below is that he did not even weight the gold articles and handed over huge amount of Rs. 50,0007- in the year 1988 to defendant No. 3 lady. The conduct of the plaintiff-respondent, because of his this statement, is required to be examined with caution because of the reason that it is not a normal conduct of a money lender or the person who is engaged in the business of goldsmith. It is also unbelievable that a gold-smith will not satisfy himself about the correctness of the gold and will advance a good loan of Rs.50,000/- to a lady and that too when she insisted for not testing the gold. The defendant if would have insisted for not testing the gold then instantly doubt must have crept in the mind of the plaintiff about the genuineness of the gold of the gold articles, on which finance has been sought from the plaintiff. The defendant if would have insisted for not testing the gold then instantly doubt must have crept in the mind of the plaintiff about the genuineness of the gold of the gold articles, on which finance has been sought from the plaintiff. With this statement of the plaintiff, if we look at Ex.1 then Ex.1 is in two languages. There is no explanation how the fluent Marwari writing turned into a good Hindi writing in last three lines of the documents. The author of Ex.1 is one person only and he is the plaintiff himself. For this, virtually there is no explanation of the plaintiff. The subject written in Marwari language is complete and the subject written in Hindi language is independent and complete in itself. The size of letter, the ink used and the distance between two lines in two languages are entirely different. It is surprising that the trial court ignored all these material facts while examining Ex.1. The signature of defendant No.3 at the end of language, cannot explain the change of language in the document. The change of language is highly improbable in view of the writing mentioned in the main part of Ex.1. Therefore, document Ex.1 is clearly interpolated document. The defendant on oath stated that such language was inserted without defendant No.3s knowledge. There was no reason for disbelieving this statement of defendant. The insertion of language appears to be purposeful and for creating evidence only. The alleged signatures of the witnesses in different language on the outer cover of the box also causes serious doubt. In addition to above, the plaintiffs sole witness PW-2 Madan Lal, is an interested witness and interested in plaintiff as he also was borrower of the plaintiff who took loan from the plaintiff by mortgaging the house. The plaintiffs own witness PW-2 Madan Lal in his cross-examination, stated that the plaintiff accepted the gold articles after weighing. Thereby, the plaintiff and his witness contradicted each other on material point. In view of the above facts, the statements of the plaintiff and plaintiffs witness cannot be believed. The plaintiff in his plaint itself clearly stated that he is ready to hand over the pledged goods but he failed to prove that the goods pledged were the same as given by defendant No.3. In view of the above facts, the statements of the plaintiff and plaintiffs witness cannot be believed. The plaintiff in his plaint itself clearly stated that he is ready to hand over the pledged goods but he failed to prove that the goods pledged were the same as given by defendant No.3. In support of his plea that he is ready to hand over the goods which were pledged by defendant No.3 to the plaintiff, there is only his statement and he produced the articles in the court. The defendant stated that the goods which were shown to her in the court were not given by her to the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff purposefully in the plaint itself mentioned that he did not test the gold articles and in the statement stated that even he did not weight the gold articles, then in all probabilities, it appears that the gold articles produced by the plaintiff are not the same articles which were given by the defendant No.3 to the plaintiff. (14). The trial court, therefore, committed serious error of fact and law in deciding issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. In fact there is no dispute about taking of loan by defendant No.3. Even defendant No.3 did not dispute it, rather say, defendant admitted and offered the loan amount with interest to the plaintiff, but on condition that the gold articles given by the plaintiff be re-delivered to the defendants. Therefore, the transaction of taking of loan by pledging the goods is admitted fact of the plaintiff and the defendants. In view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Lallan Prasad (supra), the plaintiff cannot retain the goods of the defendants and seek decree for money against the defendants. Honble the Supreme Court held that so long, however, the sale does not take place the pawner is entitled to redeem the goods on payment of the debt. It follows, therefore, that where a Pawnee files a suit for recovery of debt, though he is entitled to retain the goods, he is bound to return them on payment of the debt and, therefore, if he has put himself in a position where he is not able to redeliver the goods, he cannot obtain a decree. It follows, therefore, that where a Pawnee files a suit for recovery of debt, though he is entitled to retain the goods, he is bound to return them on payment of the debt and, therefore, if he has put himself in a position where he is not able to redeliver the goods, he cannot obtain a decree. In view of the above reason, without delivery of the goods, the plaintiff cannot obtain money decree against the defendants. There is further more reason of doubt in the present matter. Even after lapse of so many years, when the price of gold has increased multi-folds, the plaintiff did not seek relief of sale of goods. Obviously, he must be knowing that the ornaments which he produced in court, may not be of gold. The defendant even immediately after seeing the ornaments, clearly stated that the ornaments which were given by her, are not produced by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to decree for any amount against his advancement of money of Rs.50,000/- on 17.5.1988 to defendant No.3, as he failed to prove that he is ready to redeliver the pledged goods to the defendant. (15). In view of the above reason, the appeal of the appellant is allowed with cost. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30.9.2002 is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with cost.