( 1 ) SA No. 172 of 1992 is preferred against the judgment and decree in AS No. 13 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Srikalahasthi confirming the judgment and decree in OS No. 67 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, srikalahasthi.

( 2 ) SA No. 173 of 1992 is preferred against the judgment and decree in AS no. 12 of 1990 on the file of Sub-Judge, srikalahasthi confirming the judgment and decree in OS No. 119 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, srikalahasthi.

( 3 ) THE appellants in both the appeals are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the respective suits. Both the suits were filed for recovery of money from the defendants due under promissory notes. Though the defendants in both the suits are common, the plaintiff in os No. 67 of 1986 is different from the plaintiff in OS No. 119 of 1985. SA No. 172 of 1992

( 4 ) THE factual matrix in OS No. 67 of 1986 is asunder: the plaintiff averred that on 9-6-1981 the defendants borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 9,000/- and jointly executed the suit promissory note promising to repay the same on demand or order with interest at 12% per annum. Despite repeated demands