BHAT, J.:- These two appeals have been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 252/72 and O.S. No. 159/71 respectively on the file of the Sub Court, Trichur.

2. A.S. No. 187/75 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 159/71. The suit is for recovery of monies due under two promissory notes dated 11-11-1967 for Rs. 10,000 (Ext. A1) and dated 17-12-1969 for Rs. 28,500/- (Ext. A2) said to have been executed by the 3rd defendant, managing partner of the first defendant firm, for and on behalf of the firm, the second defendant being the other partner. The amounts remained unpaid in spite of demands and a notice. The second defendant filed written statement contending that the firm has been dissolved, that the third defendant had no authority to borrow money so as to bind the firm, that the business was stopped on account of the unlawful acts of the third defendant, that documents in the suit are brought about by collusion of the plaintiff and the third defendant who are friends, that loan could not be contracted without the junction of the second defendant, that in any event the alleged promissory notes are not supported by consideration and are vitiated by collusion, that they did not find a place in the accounts maintained by the third defendant, that there was no necessity for borrowing on behalf of the firm, that in any event plaintiff is not entitled to interest or a decree against the firm or the second defendant, that the promissory notes do not appear to have been duly stamped at the time of execution and therefore are not admissible in evidence. The third defendant filed written statement admitting execution of the documents but denying that they were duly stamped or that they were executed as promissory notes. According to him, on behalf of the firm he was having dealings with the plaintiff by way of purchase of arecanuts, that normally payments would be made in cash, but on certain occasions when he was short of cash he used to make the payments at night or on the next day and on such occasions he used to give letters to the plaintiff on the plaintiff's request as security and the two documents relied on the plaint are two such letters. They are not supported by consideration and they were not stamped and they did not purport to be promissory notes. The second letter was issued later on in suppression of the first letter. There were no loan transactions at all. The stamps must have been affixed subsequently and therefore there is material alteration.

3. The appellant in A.S. No. 179/75 filed the suit O.S. 252/72 against the very same partnership and partners impleading his own son-in-law as the 4th defendant. The 4th defendant in this suit is none other than the brother of the plaintiff in O.S. 159/71. It was alleged in O.S. 252/72 that the third defendant, for and on behalf of the firm, borrowed a sum of Rs. 27,000/- from the 4th defendant on 21-12-1979 as Managing Partner of the firm and executed Ext. A37 promissory note, that the promissory note was duly endorsed in favour of the plaintiff for consideration and the amount remained unpaid in spite of the demands, letter and notice. The second defendant sent a false reply in collusion with the third defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 filed separate written statements raising contentions similar to those raised by them respectively in the other suit. The 4th defendant did not file a written statement.

4. The two suits were consolidated and tried together. The plaintiffs in the two suits were examined as P. Ws. 1 and 2 respectively. The 4th defendant in O.S. 252/72 was examined as P.W. 4. The common defendants 2 and 3 were examined as D.Ws. land 2 respectively.P. Ws. 3, 5 and D.W. 3 are other witnesses examined. The trial court held that Exts. A1, A2 and A37 are really promissory notes and not merely letters, that they have been materially altered by affixing and cancelling stamps subsequently, that the promissory notes were executed by third defendant for and on behalf of the