These two appeals arise out of the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi, dated 31-8-1988 passed in O.S. Nos. 173 of 1984 resepctively.

2. One Mr. W.S. Sitaram, the power of attorney holder and the agent of the plaintiffs in the above suits filed and prosecuted the suits as against M/s. Sri Laxmi Paradise (Leela Mahal), a partnership concern, and its partners the common defendants. The plaintiffs are the money-lenders at Madras. The defendants for the purpose of construction of the 1st defendant theatre approached the plaintiffs on 9-11-1981 for a loan at Madras. The plaintiffs ultimately agreed to advance loans on short term basis on Hundis with interest at 2.5% per month as per the custom of lending loans at Madras. The defendants had borrowed various amounts on various dates under different Hundis, The 2nd defendant on behalf of the firm deposited the title deeds with the plaintiffs and created an equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs separately, as a security for the due repayment of the loan. As the defendants failed to repay the loan amounts despite several demands, the plaintiffs got issued registered notices through its advocates and also through its agent the said W. S. Sitaram and ultimately filed the above suits. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants are not agriculturists, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefits of Act 4 of 1938 and Act 7 of 1977. The plea of the defendants in both the suits among various other contentions is that every subsequent Hundi was in respect of the original first transaction and whenever a renewal was made the previous one was not closed and the amount due under the first Hundi was also being added in the renewal documents, and therefore, the defendants are not liable to pay all the amounts mentioned in the plaints and are liable to pay only under the first transaction with reasonable interest at 12% per annum. The defendants denied of having created equitable mortgages.

3. The following identical issues have been framed in both the suits basing upon the respective pleadings.

1. Whether there is a privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendants ?

2. Whether W.S. Sitaram is a proper and necessary party ?

3. Whether the Hundis are not fully supported by consideration ?

4. Whether there is no intention to create any equitable mortgage as a security for repayment of the suit amount ?

5. Whether the defendants are not liable to pay the entire suit amount?

6. Whether the interest is exorbitant ?

7. Whether the defendants are entitled for two years time to discharge the suit debt ?

8. To what relief ?

4. At the time of trial two witnesses each were examined on the side of the plaintiffs and on the side of the defendants the third defendant was examined as D.W. 1 in both the suits. The documents Exs. A.1 to A.94 and X.1 to X.13 were marked in the first suit, and documents Exs. A.1 to A.118 and X.1 to X.13 were marked in the second suit. But no documents were marked on the side of the defendants in either of the suits.

5. O.S. No. 173 of 1984 was decreed for an amount of Rs. 1,47,700/-with 24% simple interest per annum from the date of the original Hundis till the date of the suit after deducting the advance interest paid by the defendants and with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. Similarly, O.S. No. 207 of 1984 was decreed for an amount of Rs. 2,54,600/- and with the same terms. A preliminary decree was passed for sale of the suit hypotheca for realisation of the amount.

6. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees, in so far as the rate of interest is concerned, the plaintiff-appellants filed these two appeals.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended before me that the rate of interest prevailing in the city of Madras at the relevant time as per evidence on record was 2.5% per annum. He further contended that the plaintiffs themselves borrowed the amount