6. During the pendency of suit, Sangeeta Sharma, defendantappellant no.1, had died and in her place, appellant no.1/1 to 1/3 had been substituted, who have filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaint. It was also the case of the appellants that they have taken two loans from Punjab National Bank after mortgaging the house in dispute and since, appellants had no means to repay the loan amount, therefore, they approached plaintiff/respondent for a loan of Rs.1,56,000/-. The appellants stated that plaintiff/respondent was engaged in the business of lending money on interest and as the appellants were in need of money, therefore, they took a loan of Rs.1,56,000/- from plaintiff/respondent. It was further stated that plaintiff/respondent had agreed to give the loan on execution of a document for the purposes of security of loan, and accordingly, as the appellants had no option but to sign the documents for the purposes of obtaining the loan, Sangeeta Sharma signed the document. It is further stated that late Sangeeta Sharma did not enter into any agreement to sale with plaintiff/respondent and the document was executed only for the purposes of securing the loan. It is further stated that plaintiffrespondent by misleading Late Sangeeta Sharma, got the alleged
