JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 08.12.2015 (decree sealed and signed on 21.12.2015) passed by the learned District Judge-II, Jamshedpur in Money Appeal No.1 of 1993 whereby the appeal has been dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.02.1989 (decree sealed and signed on 04.03.1989) passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Jamshedpur in Money Suit No.80 of 1985/143A of 1988 whereby the suit was decreed on contest and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to realize a sum of Rs.35,000/- against the defendants jointly and severally each. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the defendant no.1 was the principal loanee and the defendant no.2 was the concerned bank. He has submitted that as per the case of the plaintiffs, the defendant no.1 the uncle of the plaintiffs, had pledged the fixed deposits standing in the name of the plaintiffs, who were minor at the relevant point of time. It was pledged by defendant no.1, and he availed the loan and also became a defaulter and he has submitted that the defendant no.1 had misrepresented himself as the natural guardian of the plaintiffs. 4. The learned counsel submits that the liability has been fixed as joint and severally primarily on the ground that the interest which accrued in the fixed deposit was paid against the loan amount. The learned counsel has referred to the substantial questions of law which he has framed at Paragraph- (J) and (M) of the Memo of Second Appeal, which are quoted as under: “ (J) Whether the learned Courts below committed serious illegality by not appreciating that the appellant granted loan to the defendant no.1 against the security of the two Fixed Deposit Accounts standing in the names of plaintiffs/respondents no.2 &3, that too when it has been specifically admitted by the defendant no.1 that he had given the said loan amount to the plaintiffs to meet their urgent need of money after availing the same for their welfare, acting as their natural guardian? (M) Whether the learned Appellate Court miserably failed to give clear finding on the aspect as to whether there was any collusion between the appellant and the defendant no.1 based on which the learned Trial Court observed that the appellant and defendant no.1 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiffs; thus, the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction to hold that the grant of loan was illegal?” 5. This Court has gone through the impugned judgments and finds that one of the issues which was framed by the trial court was “Are the plaintiffs entitled to realize a sum of Rs.35,000/- against the defendants? 6. The learned trial court after scrutinising the materials recorded findings at Para-14 that the bank, defendant no.2 advanced the loan to the defendant no.1 without express permission from the natural guardian mother of the plaintiffs and without taking any permission of the mother. Therefore, collusion of the defendant bank is evident in advancing loan to the defendant No.1 and it cannot be ruled out in the nature and circumstances of the suit as appearing. Therefore, when there is an express provision of the bank that without the natural guardian’s consent and express permission, a minor’s fixed deposit cannot be pledged, then also the bank defendant no.2 has done it and gave loan to the defendant no.1 on the fixed deposit of the plaintiffs without taking permission from their mother, the natural guardian. It clearly goes to show that the bank authority in collusion with the defendant no.1 has done the same in violation of the rules of the bank prejudicial to the interest of the minor plaintiffs. The trial court held that defendant no.1 in collusion with the defendant no.2 appropriated the interest of the fixed deposit of the plaintiffs for his personal need and thereby took loan of Rs.15000/- also for his benefits and not for the welfare and the benefit of the plaintiffs. As such from the wrong done by the defendants, the plaintiffs should not suffer and both the defendants are to compensate the plaintiffs, and therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs for Rs.35,000/- against the defendants seems to be justified and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to realize the same from the defendants jointly and severally. The findings are quoted as under: - “ 14. The findings are quoted as under: - “ 14. It is also admitted fact that at the time of fixed deposit, the plaintiffs were minors. It is also admitted fact the mother is the natural guardian of the plaintiffs who is alive. It is also an admitted fact that the defendant no.1 is the uncle of the plaintiff and the said fixed deposit was made under his guardianship for the benefit of the plaintiffs. It is also an admitted fact that defendant no.2 received the interest of the fixed deposit and after pledging the fixed deposit, he took loan of Rs.15,000/- from the bank. It is evident and admitted that the interests of the fixed deposits were being adjusted in the loan amount taken by the defendant no.1. Ext. A and A/1 are these fixed deposit receipts. Ext. B and B/1 are the applications of defendant no.1 who knows that the plaintiff no.2 is his nephew, but cunningly in the loan application Ext. B/1, he has shown plaintiff no.2 as his son. Similarly in Ext. B, it is find that some portions are added in the bottom of the letter which are written after instruction of the bank and in that exhibit from the beginning portion and the contents, it is definitely gathered that the defendant no.1 expressed his urgency for the land and not for the urgency of the plaintiffs or for their benefit. A plain reading of these letters is evident of this fact. To my opinion, defendant no.1 has shown plaintiff no.2 as his son in Ext-B/1 deceiving the bank to facilitate him only to take the amount. Similarly in Ext-B added portion i.e. “the amount is withdrawn for the benefit of the minor”. Has been cunningly added in collusion with the bank staff because this added portion is not in the pen and signature of the defendant no.1. this circumstance certainly speaks against the defendant no.1. Besides from Ext-A and A/1 the fixed deposits, it is evident that the bank (defendant no.2) knows very well that defendant no.1 is not the natural guardian of the plaintiffs minor. this circumstance certainly speaks against the defendant no.1. Besides from Ext-A and A/1 the fixed deposits, it is evident that the bank (defendant no.2) knows very well that defendant no.1 is not the natural guardian of the plaintiffs minor. I find from the evidence of D.W.4 who is the manager of defendant no.2 bank from evidence para-6 where this witness has stated that if any loan is taken against the pledging of minors’ account, then the permission of the natural guardian of the minor is required under the rules and the fixed deposit can be renewed after maturity. Similarly, D.W.5 an employee of the State Bank of India in para-7 of his evidence clearly stated that without natural guardian’s consent, minors’ account cannot be pledged. Admittedly mother of plaintiffs is their natural guardian. Admittedly in violation of the bank rules, permission of the natural guardian of the plaintiffs (their mother) has not been taken in pledging the minor’s consent. Further for taking loan after pledging from the plaintiffs account, no permission has been obtained from the District Judge for certified guardian by the defendant. In such circumstances, the hand of the bank defendant no.2 is also not clean in advancing loan to the defendant no.1 against the plaintiffs’ accounts (fixed deposits). The bank defendant no.2 advanced the loan to the defendant no.1 without express permission from the natural guardian mother of the plaintiffs and without taking any permission of the mother. Therefore, collusion of the defendant bank is evident in advancing loan to the defendant No.1 and it cannot be ruled out in the nature and circumstances of the suit as appearing. Therefore, when there is an express provision of the bank that without the natural guardian’s consent and express permission, a minor’s fixed deposit cannot be pledged, then also the bank defendant 2 has done it and gave loan to the defendant no.1 on the fixed deposit of the plaintiffs without taking permission from their mother, the natural guardian. It clearly goes to show that the bank authority in collusion with the defendant no.1 has done the same in violation of the rules of the bank prejudicial to the interest of the minor plaintiffs. It clearly goes to show that the bank authority in collusion with the defendant no.1 has done the same in violation of the rules of the bank prejudicial to the interest of the minor plaintiffs. Therefore, it is hold by this court that defendant no.1 in collusion with the defendant no.2 appropriated the interest of the fixed deposit of the plaintiffs for his personal need and thereby took loan of Rs.15000/- also for his benefits and not for the welfare and the benefit of the plaintiffs. As such from the wrong done by the defendants, the plaintiffs should not suffer and both the defendants are to compensate the plaintiffs, and therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs for Rs.35,000/- against the defendants is seems to be justified and it is hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to realize the same from the defendants jointly and severally each.” 7. This Court finds that the learned trial court has scrutinized the materials on record and has recorded a clear finding that the bank- defendant no.2 advanced the loan to defendant no.1 without taking consent from the natural guardian and mother of the plaintiffs and without taking any express permission from their mother. The learned trial court also recorded that the loan was extended against the norms of the bank. The learned trial court further recorded that when there is an express provision of the bank that without the natural guardian’s consent and express permission, a minor’s fixed deposit cannot be pledged, then also the bank defendant no. 2 has done it and gave loan to the defendant no.1 on the fixed deposit of the plaintiffs without taking permission from their mother, the natural guardian. The learned trial court recorded that the action of the bank was arbitrary and in collusion with defendant no.1 and violative of the rules. The learned trial court thereafter recorded that the defendant no.1 in collusion with defendant no.2 appropriated the interest of the fixed deposit of the plaintiffs for his personal need and thereby took loan of Rs.15,000/- also for his benefit and not for the welfare and benefits of the plaintiffs and consequently held that both the defendants were jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiffs for Rs.35,000/- and accordingly decreed the suit. 8. 8. The learned appellate court framed the following points for consideration: “(i) Whether the appellant-bank was legally entitled to attach and forfeit the amount of the fixed deposits standing in the names of the plaintiffs as security against the loan taken by defendant no.1 from the appellant-bank? (ii) Relief, if any?” 9. The learned appellate court scrutinized the materials on record and recorded concurrent findings and dismissed the money appeal. The learned appellate court recorded findings in Paragraphs - 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 which are reproduced as under: “ 24. Following relevant facts are proved from above analysis of evidences: (i) That defendant no.1 had opened the FD account in two separate accounts, one for each of the two plaintiffs for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each, dated 28.02.80. (ii) That, on the date of opening up these two FD accounts with the depositors/plaintiffs were minors, that is, below the age of 18 years. (iii) That, admittedly, the defendant no.2 (Shyam Sunder Sharma) is the uncle of both the plaintiffs (full brother of the deceased father of the plaintiffs); their mother is still alive. (iv) That defendant no.1 had deposited the FD describing himself as father and guardian of each plaintiff/depositor. (v) That, defendant no.1 had taken loan of Rs.15,000/- (i.e. Rs.7500/- against each of the two aforesaid FD) when, admittedly again, both the borrowers/ depositors were still minors; i.e. below 18 years of age. Rakesh attained maturity on 17.11.84, while Rajendra attained majority on 3.6.86. (vi) Both these loans were transferred in the personal account of defendant no.1. (vii) It is not the case of plaintiffs that at that time, they or either of them or their mother had separate passbook account with any bank. (viii) Both the loans were again taken by defendant no.1, representing himself as father and guardian of each of the plaintiffs, when both the plaintiffs were still minor. (ix) The above loan was taken on representation that the loans were being taken for welfare of the minor depositors. (x) The above loan were taken by pledging the above two F.D. accounts. (xi) That on prayer of defendant no.1, the entire loan amount of Rs.14,000/- was deposited in the personal account (passbook) of defendant no.1 at the bank, defendant no.2. 25. (x) The above loan were taken by pledging the above two F.D. accounts. (xi) That on prayer of defendant no.1, the entire loan amount of Rs.14,000/- was deposited in the personal account (passbook) of defendant no.1 at the bank, defendant no.2. 25. Defendant no.1, being the uncle of the minor plaintiffs does not come within the definition of ‘guardian’ as defined in clause (b) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 . At best, he was the ‘de facto’ guardian of the minor plaintiffs. Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 lays down that “After the commencement of this Act, no person shall be entitled to dispose of, or deal with, the property of a Hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being the de facto guardian of the minor”. Thus, according to this Act of 1956, defendant no.1 had no legal authority to take loan from the bank by pledging the aforesaid two FD/AC of the minor plaintiffs which were the property of the minors. 26. Admittedly, defendant no.1 was not a ‘testamentary guardian of these plaintiffs, nor was reappointed as a ‘guardian’ of these minors under Section 7 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890. 27. The appellant failed to refer to any law which authorizes the bank to grant loan to a third person against the security of F/D Accounts of different minor persons. 28. on the basis of discussions, it is held that the appellant-defendant no.2 Bank had granted a loan of Rs.15,000/- to the defendant no.1 against the security of above two FD accounts standing in the names of two plaintiffs-minors without any sanction of law. Whether defendant no.1 actually misappropriated the loan amount or used it for the welfare of the plaintiffs is not at all relevant between plaintiffs qua the bank defendant no.2. the very fact of granting loan by defendant no.2 was an illegal act. Accordingly, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the ld. Trial court is quite correct and, accordingly, the same is confirmed.” 10. the very fact of granting loan by defendant no.2 was an illegal act. Accordingly, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the ld. Trial court is quite correct and, accordingly, the same is confirmed.” 10. This Court finds that both the courts have securitized the materials on record and came to concurrent findings that both the defendants were jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff whose fixed deposits were pledged and its interest was utilised to clear the dues of the bank and the learned courts have taken into consideration that no permission was sought for from the court also to pledge the fixed deposits of the minor and the natural guardian was still alive. This Court finds that the appellant-bank has not been able to show any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned courts below and no question of law, much less any substantial question of law as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant arise for consideration in this second appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal is hereby dismissed. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 12. Let this judgement be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.