JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.-

This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of Madras High Court dated November 25,1980.

2. The appellant- Indian Bank (in short the Bank) filed a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs 1,21,006.98 due under an equitable mortgage and pronote against three defendants namely, K. Nataraja Pillai (defendant 1), his wife N. Pappathi Ammal (defendant 2) and his son N. Narayanan (defendant 3). According to the Bank, the defendants 1 to 3 executed a promissory note for Rs 1,00,000 on August 26, 1971 in favour of the Bank. They also executed two hypothecation deeds in respect of A schedule properties and executed an equitable mortgage on August 28, 1971 for B schedule properties. The consideration for the aforesaid transaction also included an amount of Rs 71,000 granted by the Bank in favour of 37 persons by way of short term loans. The defendant 1 had executed a guarantee agreement on June 14, 1971 in favour of the Bank in respect of the aforesaid short term loan in favour of 37 persons. The Bank had thus based its claim in the plaint on the promissory note and guarantee agreement for Rs 1,00,000 as principal and Rs 21,006.98 as interest.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the execution of guarantee agreement as well as the promissory note. He pleaded inter alia that the defendants had not furnished any guarantee on June 14, 1971 with regard to the repayment of loans amounting to Rs 71,000 to 37 persons. The defendants had not executed any promissory note in favour of the Bank for a lakh of rupees nor had executed any equitable mortgage nor deposited any documents of title towards any loan of Rs 1,00,000. The defendant 1 also pleaded that the agent of the Bank Shri Krishnamurthy Iyer in order to ward off his own prosecution and arrest for having advanced large amounts as loans to landless persons in an irregular manner obtained the signature of the defendants on a printed promissory note without the details having been filled up. The documents were got executed by exercise of fraud, undue influence, coercion and misrepresentation. The defendants 2 and 3 filed a separate written statement and took the same stand as taken by the defendant 1. The third defendant subsequently filed a separate additional written statement taking the ground that he was born on November 12, 1953 and as such being minor on the date of the alleged execution of the promissory note, the same was void as against him. The trial court by judgment dated April 29, 1975 decreed the suit in favour of the Bank and against the defendants 1 and 2 only and dismissed the suit against defendant 3 as he was found to be minor on August 26,1971.

4. The defendants 1 and 2 filed an appeal in the High Court. The High Court though upheld the finding of the trial court that the promissory note Ex. A-l dated August 26,1971 was executed with the full knowledge that it was a promissory note for Rs 1,00,000, but the same was void for want of consideration to the extent of the loan advanced to 37 borrowers. The High Court held that the loans amounting to Rs 71,000 to 37 persons were advanced from December 17,1970 to May 4,1971 and as such there was no consideration for executing the guarantee agreement dated June 14, 1971 nor for executing the promissory note on August 26, 1971. The High Court further held that the promissory note Ex. A-l can be taken to have been supported by consideration only to the extent of Rs 21,616.25 which represented the amount due against defendants 1 and 2 on account of their personal borrowings from the Bank. The High Court also held that the trial court itself had found it established that the defendant 3 was a minor on August 26, 1971 and the Bank having not filed any appeal, no decree could have been passed against defendants 1 and 2 for an amount of Rs 4,193.19, the amount advanced to the third defendant. The High Court as a result of the above findings allowed the appeal in part and p