JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2005, passed in O.S. Nos. 04 of 2004 & 117 of 2004, on the file of the District Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, the plaintiff has come forward with the appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. O.S. No.04 of 2004 has been laid for recovery of money. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiff, on 08.10.1992, at the request of the defendants 1, 3 and 4, cash credit facility was granted to the first defendant upto Rs.5,00,000/- and the defendants 3 and 4 stood as co-obligants and guarantors for the abovesaid facility and necessary documents were executed in favour of the plaintiff's bank and subsequently, the plaintiff had sanctioned the regular loan facility of Rs.4,50,000/- to the first defendant i.e., by reducing the limit from Rs.5,00,000/- with effect from 06.01.1993 and all the defendants have executed necessary loan documents as detailed in the plaint in respect of the abovesaid reduced loan facility in favour of the plaintiff bank and furthermore, the defendants 3 and 4, in order to secure the repayment of the loan advanced to the first defendant and with an intent to create a mortgage by deposit of title deeds, had deposited their title deeds of the property described in the plaint and inasmuch as, despite repeated demands and requests and issuance of notice, the defendants had failed to settle the loan amount and hence, according to the plaintiff bank, it has been necessitated to institute the abovesaid suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.

4. O.S. No.117 of 2004 has been laid for recovery of money. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiff, the defendants 2 and 3 are the partners of the first defendant firm and the plaintiff bank had granted the defendants 1 to 3 a cash credit open facility upto Rs.50,000/- on 06.01.1993 and the defendants 2 to 6 are the co-obligants and guarantors for the due repayment of the abovesaid loan amount and necessary documents such as demand promissory note and letter of acknowledgement dated 06.01.1993 were executed by the defendants 2 and 3 at the time of the availment of the loan and the defendants 4 to 6 executed guarantee agreement and the defendants 5 and 6, who had already deposited the title deeds of the suit property as collateral security on 03.08.1992 for the loan advanced to the second defendant, had called on the bank on 07.01.1993 and orally declared that the title deeds already deposited by them would also be a security for the due repayment of the loan advanced to the defendants 1 to 3 and inasmuch as the defendants have failed to settle the loan amount despite repeated demands and requests, the need for the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. In both matters, though the defendants had filed separate written statements, however, considering the position that the suits laid by the plaintiff having been disposed of in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for against all the defendants except the defendant namely, J. Nanjundan, who is arrayed as the fourth defendant in O.S. No.4 of 2004 and sixth defendant in O.S. No.117 of 2004 and it is seen that as against the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff as against the other defendants, having not been put to any challenge, in such view of the matter, the pleas put forth by them in the written statement need not be adverted to in the present appeals.

6. In both the suits, the defendant J. Nanjundan had resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that he is not aware of the loan transactions alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff bank and the other defendants as put forth in the plaint and according to him, he has not stood as guarantor along with the other defendants nor executed any agreement and nor given any oral assent for the loan taken from the plaintiff bank and his signature has been forged in the loan documents projected by the plaintiff and he has not