K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF in O. S. No. 79/81 is the appellant in A. S. No. 145/90 while the defendant No. 3 is the appellant in a. S. No. 740/85. Similarly, the plaintiff in o. S. No. 80/81 is the appellant in a. S. No. 1533/85 while the Defendant No. 3 is the appellant in A. S. No. 776/1985.

( 2 ) BOTH the suits, that is O. S. No. 79/81 and O. S. No. 80/81 have been disposed by the principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, through a common judgment and, therefore, these appeals are being decided by a common judgment.

( 3 ) IT is an admitted fact that the Defendant nos. 2, 3, 4 in both the suits are real brothers and the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the partners of the 1st defendant-firm while the second defendant is its managing Partner. PW3 and DW2 are real brothers. DW2 is the husband of the 5th defendant in O. S. No. 79/81 and PW3 is the husband of the 5th defendant in O. S. 80/81. The plaintiff in both the suits is the brother-in-law (loser) of the 3rd defendant in both the suits.

( 4 ) IT is no longer in controversy before me that the 5th defendant in O. S. 79/81 had lent an amount of Rs. 17,000/- on interest to the first defendant-firm through Pronote, ex. A1. She had transferred the "pronote, ex A1, for a consideration of Rs. 14,160/- in favour of the plaintiff vide endorsement, ex. A5. Similarly, the fifth defendant in o. S. No. 80/81 had lent an amount of rs. 17,000/- to the 1st defendant-firm through pronote, Ex. A11 and had later transferred the said pronote in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 14,160/- vide endorsement, Ex. A15. The plaintiff laid a claim for Rs. 18,090/- inclusive of interest in o. S. No. 79/81 against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and impleaded the Defendant No. 5 as a proper party, but had not claimed any relief against her. Similarly, he had laid a suit for recovery of Rs,18,090/- inclusive of interest in O. S. 80/81 against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and had impleaded the 5th defendant as a proper party, but without claiming any relief against her. The 5th defendant in both the suits remained exparte.

( 5 ) THE 1st defendant-firm, the 2nd and the 4th defendants filed a joint written statement resisting the claim in suit, alleging that the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had share in the partnership firm in the ratio of 55:35 and 10 per cent respectively and, therefore, they had agreed to share the liability under the loans taken by the first defendant-firm in the same ratio. The 3rd defendant had agreed to discharge the liabilities under the pronote, ex. Al and Al 1 to the 5th defendant while the Defendants No. 2 and 4 had undertaken to discharge the liability under the other pronotes. They were discharged from the liability under pronote Ex. Al and A11. The 5th defendant-creditor of both the suits had agreed to the above arrangements and, therefore, they were entitled to recover the loan with interest under pronote Al and Al 1 from the third defendant only. The 3rd defendant filed a separate written statement stating that he has no knowledge about the loan transactions of his firm and the 5th defendant of both the cases. He has stated that no agreement as pleaded by the 2nd and 4th defendants were arrived at. He further pleaded that joint and several responsibility under pronote Ex. Al and Al 1 cannot be made several and he alone cannot be fastened with the liability.

( 6 ) THE trial Court on assessment of the evidence on record accepted the oral arrangement between the Defendants No. 1 to 4 on one hand the 5th defendant of both the cases on the other and reached the conclusion that the Defendant No. 3 is only liable to pay the claim in both the suits to the exclusion of the first three defendants and accordingly decreed both the suits against the 3rd defendant only.

( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 79/81 preferred as. 145/90 and the plaintiff in O. S. 80/81 preferred A. S. 1533/1980, while the 3rd defendant in O. S. No. 79/81 preferr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document