Altamas Kabir, J. — Leave granted.

2. An interesting question regarding the interpretation of Rule 104 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to rule 101 thereof has been raised by Mr. M.K.S. Menon, learned counsel for the appellant. In order to appreciate his submissions, it is necessary to briefly set out the facts of the case giving rise to such question.

3. The appellant, who was the original owner of the suit property along with the building erected thereupon, allegedly took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the husband of the respondent No. 1 and under the guise of security for the loan the appellant was made to execute a conveyance in respect of the suit property measuring 88 cents in favour of the respondent No. 1 on 1st October, 1986. According to the appellant, on the same day his wife was also made to sign on a blank paper, which was later on converted into a Rent Deed. It also appears that on account of another loan taken by the appellant from the Syndicate Bank, OS No. 176 of 1982 was instituted by the Bank against the appellant for recovery of the amounts due, before the Subordinate Court, Thalasherry, in which the suit property was attached.

4. In