( 1 ) HEARD the counsel on record.

( 2 ) THE Second Appeal No. 261 of 1997 is preferred by the unsuccessful defendant in o. S. No. 51 of 1984 on the file of Principal district Munsif, Kakinada and the appellant in A. S. No. 59 of 1993 on file of Principal subordinate Judge, Kakmada. As against respondent No. 1 the Second Appeal was dismissed for default.

( 3 ) THE Second Appeal No. 214 of 1998 is filed by the unsuccessful defendant in o. S. No. 54 of 1984 on the file of the Principal district Munsif, Kakinada and the appellant in A. S. No. 36 of 1992 on the file of Principal subordinate Judge, Kakinada.

( 4 ) THOUGH, the appellants, in these two appeals are different, the respondent-plaintiff being common and inasmuch as these matters had been disposed of by the Court below by a common Judgment, both these second Appeals are being disposed of by the common Judgment.

( 5 ) SRI T. M. K. Chaitanya, learned counsel representing the appellants in both the second Appeals had pointed out that the only substantial question of law which would arise for consideration in these Second appeals is as hereunder: whether Ex. A-1 is admissible in evidence and be treated as substan