Filling up blank form amounts to material alteration.

JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by the third defendant S. Perumal Reddiar against the judgment and decree dated 14th February, 1975, in O.S. No.99 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, decreeing the suit with costs as prayed for. The trial court held that the, 2nd defendant will be proceeded against after the remedies are exhausted against the first defendant,

2. The suit is on a promissory note.

3. The case of the plaintiff, Bank of Baroda by its power of attorney agent Kaliprasad Thakur, before the trial court is that the plaintiff is a banking institution constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act. 1969, with its branch, among other places at Mangadu and that the suit is instituted by the power of attorney agent Kali Prasad Thakur, the Regional Manager. Southern Region, Mount Road, Madras-2. The 1st defendant K.L. Sundaram Reddiar, the 2nd defendant A. Sundaram Reddiar and the 3rd defendant S. Perumal Reddiar are residing at Kaliampatti village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Chingleput District. The plaintiff, Bank of Baroda at the Mangadu branch afforded to the 1st defendant on 15th March, 1973 crop loan facility for Rs. 15,000/- for agricultural purposes on the hypothecation of present and future crops on the 1st defendant's lands bearing Chitta Nos. 39, 377, 281, 130 and 99, of an extent of 43.57 acres of dry and wet lands in No. 219, Kaliampoondi village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Chingleput District. The 1st defendant promised to pay the amount on demand with interest at four per cent over the Reserve Bank of India rate with a minimum of ten per cent per annum with quarterly rests. On 15th March, 1973, the 1st defendant availed himself of the loan and on the same day, as security for the advance, the 1st defendant executed a demand promissory note and a letter of continuing security. An agreement of hypothecation-cum-guarantee was duly executed by the 1st defendant as principal debtor and 2nd and 3rd defendants as guarantors, the latter guaranteeing the due repayment of the loan and that their liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has not paid any amount towards the advance in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. A notice of demand was issued on 2nd July, 1973. Though the agricultural operation for the session ending May, 1973, was completed, the 1st defendant has not paid the amount as promised and when demanded, gave evasive reply. There is now due and payable by the defendants a sum of Rs. 15,476,35 P. as on 28th June, 1973 and further interest of Rs. 51,30 P. up to data of plaint, the defendants a sum of Rs.15,476.35 P. Defendants 2 and 3 joined the 1st defendant in executing the hypothecation-cum-guarantee as guarantors guaranteeing jointly and severally for the due repayment and discharge of the loan by the 1st defendant.

4. In his written statement, the 1st defendant K.L. Sundara Reddiar, has inter alia contended that defendants 1 to 3 and one Ramakrishna Reddiar in partnership proposed to do toddy shop business under licence from the State and that they approached the plaintiff-bank for accommodating them with a loan for one lakh of rupees on a collateral security of lands belonging to the 3rd defendant Perumal Reddiar. The plaintiff-bank accepted the title deeds of the property tendered as security by way of equitable mortgage. It was learnt that toddy shops could be taken under credit guarantee scheme, Subsequently, the Area Manager of the plaintiff-bank Mr. Narasimhan, represented to the defendants that the loan would not be granted for the toddy shop business but on the security of the title deeds offered by S.Perumal Reddiar, small agricultural loans could be given in the name of diverse parties. Accordingly, the bank granted a loan of Rs. 15,000 - to the 1st defendant, Rs,. 1,430.87 P. to the 2nd defendant, Rs. 15,000/- to the 3rd defendant, Rs. 8,000/- to Ayyaswa