Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. R.F.A.No.253/2005 arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.709/1999 of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam, and R.F.A.No.254/2005 arises out of that in O.S.No.437/2000 of the 1st Addl. Sub Court, Ernakulam. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant in both these appeals. As parties are the same and the contentions raised in both these cases are similar, we dispose of these appeals by a common judgment.

2. R.F.A.No.253/2005 is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.709/99 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam. The plaintiff, the respondent herein, filed the said suit for recovery of money for realization of a sum of 38,97,520.55 from the defendant together with future interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.29 lakhs and costs. By judgment and decree dated 20.12.2003, the court below decreed the suit in part allowing the plaintiff to recover an amount of Rs.29 lakhs together with 6% interest from 5.1.1997 till the date of realisation and proportionate costs of the suit, from the defendant and all his assets. It is challenging the said judgment and decree of the court below, the defendant is in appeal before us.

3. The plaint averments, in brief, are as follows; The defendant borrowed a total sum of Rs.29 lakhs from the plaintiff as on 5.1.1997. After receiving the said amount from the plaintiff, the defendant executed a promissory note dated 5.1.1997 in favour of the plaintiff, promising to pay on demand to the plaintiff or order the borrowed sum of Rs.29 lakhs with interest at the rate of 30% per annum. Major portion of the amount of Rs.29 lakhs borrowed by the defendant was generated by the plaintiff utilizing his capacity to raise funds from others. The defendant, in spite of demands, did not pay any amount towards the aforesaid liability, under one pretext or the other. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 15.12.1999 demanding the defendant to pay the aforesaid amount with interest on or before 18.12.1999. The defendant did not send any reply and he failed to comply with the said demand. The promissory note executed by the defendant on 5.1.1997 is supported by consideration and the suit is filed within the period of limitation. In case the defendant takes up a contention that the document dated 5.1.1997 is not a promissory note, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for on the basis of original consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for a decree in his favour, making the defendant liable and directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 38,97,520.55 only together with future interest at the rate of 15% per annum on Rs. 29 lakhs and costs of the suit. The suit was filed on 21.12.1999.

4. The defendant filed written statement and the averments in the written statement, in brief, are as follows; the suit is barred for non-joinder of M/s Chakkiath Finance which is a necessary party even as per the alleged promissory note produced along with the suit. The defendant neither executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff nor borrowed any amount from him and there is absolutely no monetary transaction between them as creditor and debtor. There was no occasion for the defendant to borrow Rs.29 lakhs and Rs.7 lakhs from the plaintiff as alleged. The plaintiff used to deposit huge amounts in M/s. Chakkiath Finance and to the knowledge of the defendant he is collecting interest for the same from the said company. The defendant has absolutely no involvement in the business of the said financing company. The plaintiff was the legal consultant of the defendant and he was a good family friend of the defendant's brother-in-law named Ouseph Mathews. When M/s. Chakkiath Finance become bankrupt, many of the depositors initiated legal proceedings against it for recovering their amount. In the above circumstances, the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested him to issue a letter just to compel M/s. Chakkiath Finance to repa