Intention of parties alone is prime issue for being considered.

AR.Lakshmanan, J.

The 4th defendant in O.S.No.14 of 1982 on the file of Sub Court, Vridhachalam, is the appellant in the present appeal. The 1st respondent-Bank filed the suit against the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs.69,083.52 together with subsequent interest and for costs. According to the 1st respondent, respondents 2 to 4 herein approached the bank for loan facilities to be granted to them under two classifications styled as “Cash Credit Facility’ ‘and” Over Draft Facility on Trade Bills“, for the purpose of expanding and developing their business. The appellant herein, who was the 4th defendant in the suit, has expressed his willingness to stand as guarantor for the facilities granted and to be granted by way of enhancement. Accordingly the plaintiff initially granted the maximum limit of Rs.10,000 on 2.3.1979 on the Loan Classification” Cash Credit Facility “ and a maximum limit of Rs.25,000 on 2.3.1979 in” Over Draft on Trade Bills". Respondents 2 to 4 have executed necessary promissory notes and other documents in favour of the Bank as required under the Rules. Respondents 2 to 4 have also agreed to hypothecate their goods and whole of their stocks in Trade and Merchandise stocked in their premises at Karur which relates to the loan sanctioned and paid to them under Cash Credit classification. The deed ofhypothecation dated 2.3.1979 has been filed as Document No.3 in the suit. The 4th defendant (appellant herein) has also executed the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed which has been marked as Ex.A-8 in the suit. Under the said document, the 4th defendant, the appellant herein, has given his property situated in S.No.314/1A house site as a security for the due repayment of the loan sanctioned to the defendants 2 to 4. Therefore, the defendants 2 to 4 have also executed additional guarantee for the additional amounts sanctioned and received by them. According to the plaintiff-Bank, the 4th defendant is also liable to the plaintiff for the loan dealings of other defendants in respect of the facilities granted and also enhanced from time to time and in consideration of the loans granted to them. The 4th defendant with intention to create an equitable mortgage on his immovable property mentioned in the schedule to the said document and by way of collateral security, deposited his title deeds relating to the property mentioned in Ex.A-8 on 1.3.1979 with the plaintiff at Karur. It is the further case of the plaintiff-Bank that the 4th defendant has also left a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 6.3.1979 signed by him. The said Memorandum has been marked as Ex.A-8 in this proceedings. Since the defendants have not paid the amount due to the plaintiff in spite of repeated demands, the plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of the money due to them from the defendants 1 to 4. Respondents 2 to 4 who are defendants 1 to 3 have not filed any written statement and contested the proceedings. The 4th defendant, the appellant herein, alone has filed a written statement. According to the 4th defendant, he never expressed his willingness to stand as a guarantor for defendant 1 to 3 and he was asked to sign some documents only as an attestor for the documents executed by defendants 1 to 3 and that the officials of the plaintiff-Bank took the signatures of the 4th defendant in several forms blank papers stating that he is signing only as attestor to the documents. It is also his case that the Bank Officials took his signature in number of blank papers and forms without disclosing the real nature and contents of the documents. According to him, he did not mortgage his properties by deposit of title deeds and even assuming without admitting that there is a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff-Bank, the said mortgage is not valid since a copy of the document alone has been filed with the Bank and not the original. On behalf of the plaintiff-Bank, Exs.A-1 to A-19 were marked and on be