Narayan, J.

1. The appeals and the Civil Revision have been heard together, because they raise common questions of law and fact. The Civil Revision is directed, against the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge, Arrah, made in Small Cause Court Suit No. 9/9 of 1951. The plaintiff Sheoshankar Pandey had sued the defendant Padumdeo Narayan Singh on the basis of a handnote dated 22-6-1950 alleged to have been executed by the defendant in his favour on a cash advance of Rs. 400/-. The suits giving rise to the Second Appeals had also been instituted by the same Sheoshankur Pandey against Awadhbihari Singh and Balbhadra Singh, the brothers of Padumduo Narayan Singh (the defendant in Small Cause Court suit No. 9/9 of 1951) on the basis of handnotes executed on the same date on which Padumdeo had executed the handnote which was the basis of the claim against him. In these two suits also the plaintiff had alleged that on 22-6-1950 the handnotes were executed in his favour by the defendants after cash advances made by him. In each of these two suits the claim was based on three handnotes, each of Rs. 400, executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The defence substan