K. Abraham Mathew, J.

1. This appeal is at the instance of the second defendant against whom a decree for money has been passed. The plaintiff and the first defendant are respondents 1 and 2 respectively.

2. The second respondent had in his ownership a bus. On 16.8.1989 he borrowed Rs. 1,16,000/- from the first respondent agreeing to repay it in 30 monthly instalments. The appellant is said to be the guarantor. On the allegation that he and the second respondent allegedly executed a 'hire purchase agreement' and a promissory note in favour of the first respondent and defaulted payment of the instalments, the first respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,48,440/-. The second respondent did not contest the suit. The appellant denied execution of the agreement and the promissory note as alleged in the plaint. The lower court decreed the suit directing the appellant as well as the second respondent to pay the amount claimed by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the decree passed against him, he has filed this appeal.

3. What is stated in the plaint is that the agreement allegedly executed by the appellant and the second respondent is a 'hire purchase agreement'. The alle