JUDGMENT

S.D. Khare, J. - This is a defendant's first appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st January, 1959, passed by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Agra, by which he decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 24,283/56 and directed that a decree under Order 34, Rule 4, C.P.C. be prepared.

2. The suit in which the decree was passed was filed by Smt. Priya Devi, widow of Lala Narain Das against the firm Messrs Sheodayal Bishambharnath, Cloth Merchants, Johri Bazar, Agra, and its two partners, namely, Bishambhar nath and his son Jagdish Prasad. Smt. Prem Devi, wife of Jagdish Prasad, was also impleaded as defendant No. 1 as the guarantor for the remaining three defendants. The plaintiff prayed that the house property of Smt. Prem Devi, which she had mortgaged as a guarantee for the amount not exceeding Rs. 20,000/- be sold to recover the amount due from Messrs Sheodayal Bishambharnath and its two proprietors.

3. The plaintiff's case, briefly stated, was that the firm Sheodayal Bishambharnath was an old firm belonging to the family. The business of the firm had, however, become slack as a result of which the Hundis executed by the two proprietors of the firm were not acceptable in the local market, and before they could become acceptable it was necessary that somebody who possessed ample credit in the market must of endorse those Hundis. Lala Narain Das, the husband of the plaintiff, enjoyed good credit in the local market and on being approached by Bishambharnath and Jagdish Prasad he agreed to endorse the Hundies executed by them upto the value of Rs. 20,000/- within one year provided a house property which was in the name of Suit. Prem Devi, wife of Jagdish Prasad, be given as mortgage security for the debt. The interest on the loan was to be paid at 6 per cent per annum. As a result of this agreement Lala Narain Das, during his lifetime, endorsed the Hundis of the value of Rs. 15,500/- and also gave Rs. 4,500/- in cash to the proprietors of the said firm on the strength of Hundis executed by them. Lala Narain Das died on 11th March, 1951. The Hundis executed by defendants 3 and 4 were renewed from time to time, but a few months after the expiry of one year the defendants refused to renew the Hundis any further. The plaintiff had to pay to the holders in due course, of the Hundis executed by Bishambharnath and Jagdish Prasad the full amount of those Hundis. It was alleged that the plaintiff had paid more than Rs. 20,000/- towards the satisfaction of those Hundis. But she claimed to recover only Rs. 20,000/-, secured under the mortgage deed, and Rs. 7,000/- as interest thereon.

4. Smt. Prem Devi (defendant No. 1) alone contested the suit. She did not dispute her signatures on the document alleged to be a mortgage deed. She, however, did not admit that it had been duly executed by her or was for consideration. Her case was that her husband Jagdish Prasad had become interested in Satta business and it was in that connection that he used 'to borrow money in the market. It was under the undue influence of Jagdish Prasad and also due to his coercion that she had signed the document without knowing its contents, She also claimed to be a purdanashin lady and alleged that she did not get any independent advice when she had signed the document. In the alternative the defendant pleaded that inasmuch as time had been allowed to the principal debtors the surety stood discharged. She also pleaded that she could not in any case be held liable for the Hundis, executed by defendants 3 and 4 after the period of one year stipulated in the deed itself. The other pleas raised by her were that the deed on the basis of which the suit had been filed was a mortgage deed and it was inadmissible in evidence for want of proper stamp on it, and that the firm Babu Lal Barain Das was a partnership firm and the widow of one of the partners only could not maintain the suit. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff could not sue without