These two second appeals are preferred by the same person. The sale respondents, in the two second appeals, are wife and husband. The nature of transactions, which are the subject matters of the second appeals, is similar. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

2. Sri G. Seetharamireddy, respondent in S.A.No. 1256 of 2008, is the maternal uncle of the appellant, and husband of Smt. Lakshmi Devi (respondent in SA No. 1255 of 2008). Seetharamireddy and his wife filed a.S.Nos. 89 of 2002 and 145 of 2002, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, for recovery of Rs.2,57,500/- and Rs.1,71,867/-, respectively. It was pleaded that the appellant borrowed a sum of RS.1,50,000/-, from Seetharamireddy, on 14-06-1999, and executed a promissory note for repayment thereof. In the other suit, the plea was that the appellant borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/-, from Lakshmi Devi, on 27-09-1999, and executed a promissory note.

3. The appellant filed separate written statements. He stated that he never had the necessity to borrow the amount from the respondents and that bearing grudge for not supporting the candidature of Seetharamireddy, as Vice-Chairman of Proddatur Municipality, promissory notes were fabricated and the suits were filed. The trial Court framed necessary issues, in two suits, and recorded evidence separately. O.S.No. 145 of 2002, filed by Lakshmi Devi, was decreed, on 29-12-2005, and O.S. No. 89 of 2002, filed by Seetharamireddy, was decreed, on 07-08-2006. A.S.Nos. 4 and 62 of 2006, filed against the said decrees in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, were dismissed, through separate judgments, on 28-08-2008. Hence, these two Second Appeals.

4. Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court committed a patent irregularity in recasting the issues at the stage of arguments, substantially changing the complexion of the suit. He contends that there existed a clear discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses and the same was not taken into account, either by the trial Court, or, by the lower appellate Court. It is also his case that, neither the respondents have the capacity to lend amount to the appellant, nor the latter had any necessity to borrow the amount from them. He further submits that the Courts below have brushed aside various attended circumstances by drawing inferences and that the decrees, passed against the appellant, cannot be sustained either on facts, or in law.

5. Sri Laxmi Reddy Byreddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these two Second Appeals. He submits that the promissory notes, which constitute the basis for the suits, were proved by adducing the oral evidence of the scribe and the witnesses, and that the appellant did not do anything to rebut that evidence.

6. The suits filed by the respondents were for recovery of the amount mentioned therein. The appellant flatly denied the execution of promissory notes or receipt of amounts from the respondents. It is also pleaded that the promissory' notes were brought into existence, on account of political differences. In O.S.No. 89 of 2002, two issues were framed, viz.,

"(a) whether the suit promissory note debt is true, valid and binding on the defendants? And

(b) Whether the suit promissory note is materially altered?"

7. In the other suit, being O.S.No. 145 of 2002, the tenor of the issues was different. They read as under:

"(a) Whether the suit pronote is rank forgery with the assistance of scribe and attestors as pleaded in the written statement by the defendants is true and binding on the defendant?

(b) Whether plaintiff entitled decree sought for?"

8. When the parties are almost common, subject matter is similar and suits are pending ir1 the same Court, they ought to have been clubbed together. For one reason or the