The execution of a document is complete when the executant signs the document voluntarily, without any duress, knowing the contents of the document.

A. L. Vaidya, J.—The present appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

1. Whether the disputed mortgage deed is valid and binding and the securities were impaired ?

2. Whether the guarantors are liable for the payment of the debt and whether the courts below have correctly interpreted the provisions of the Contract Act in the facts and circumstances of the case ? The plaintiff bank filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 41,019.50 on account of principal and interest of the short term agricultural loan advanced by the bank in favour of defendant No. 1 Shri Mehar Chand.

2. A loan to the tune of Rs. 30,700 was sanctioned by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 on latters submitting an application in this behalf. As per case of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 had agreed to mortgage his land with the plaintiff and had also agreed to hypothecate the potato crops which he was to grow on the land after taking the said loan. The defendant No. 2 Rachhpal Singh and one Shri Charan Bass, predecessors of defendants 3 to 6 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan which was taken by the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 executed a demand promissory note for Rs» 30,700, an agreement of hypothecation of standing crops and also created mortgage over his land as detailed in the plaint. It has also been the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 executed a mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff. All these documents were executed in February 1974 and on 28th February, 1974 defendant No. 2 and late Shri Charan Dass, the predecessor of the defendants 3 to 6 executed an indenture of indemnity and guarantee in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff also pleaded that the defendant No. 1 withdrew Rs 6,000 on 2-3-1974 and Rs. 24,700 on 13-3-1974 Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 paid Rs. 22,000 on various dates, as detailed below 5 (i) on 30-11-1974 Rs. 10,000 (ii) on 18-8-1975 Rs. 2,000 (iii) on 5-9-1975 Rs. 2,000 (iv) on 1-3-1978 Rs. 4,000 (v) on 15-3-1978 Rs. 4,000 Total Rs. 22,000 Plaintiff had also pleaded that the defendant had agreed that plaintiff would be entitled to charge interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum besides charging interest at the rate of 2% per annum on the amount becoming over-due. As the defendant No 1 became irregular in the repayment of the loan, hence suit for recovery of Rs. 41,019.50 on account of balance principal amount and interest due thereon was preferred.

3. Defendant No. I admitted the claim of the plaintiff by making a statement through his counsel, The defendant No. 1 sought the concession to pay the decretal money in four annual equal instalments, each payable on or before 30th of November of each year: the first being payable on 30th November, 1981. Plaintiffs counsel agreed to the payment of the decretal money by defendant No, 1 in equal annual instalments as requested by defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 2 did not appear and accordingly was proceeded ex pane.

4. Defendants 3 to 6, namely, the successors in interest of Charan Dass, the second surety, however contested the claim of the plaintiff. They alleged that Charan Dass had never stood as guarantor for the repayment of the short term loan alleged to have been taken by defendant No 1. They also pleaded that even if it was proved that said Charan Dass had given such a guarantee, his liability to pay the debt came to an end because of the acts of negligence, forbearance and indulgence of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that though the plaintiff was to get the mortgage deed in respect of the landed property of defendant No 1 executed in its favour, but on account of the acts of commission and negligence of its officers, a valid and legal mortgage deed could not be obtained. The contesting defendants further pleaded that the liability, if any, of late Charan Dass came to an end with his death and they could not be made responsible of the liability of Charan Dass, which was a