Since the appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff are same in both the second appeals and they were directed as against the common Decree and Judgments of the Appellate Court, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this sole Judgment.

2. The litigation involved in this matter has witnessed zigzag trend decision, namely, in the Trial Court the appellant/defendant won the case and in the Appellate Court, the respondent/plaintiff has won the case.

3. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.478 of 2004, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam, for recovery of Rs.72,570/- based on the promissory note, dated 01.01.2001 (Ex.A2).

4. The very same respondent/plaintiff, as against the very same appellant/defendant, instituted another suit in O.S.No.366 of 2004, in the same Trial Court, for the recovery of Rs.89,933.35, based on the promissory note, dated 01.07.2000 (Ex.A1).

5. In both the suits, the appellant/defendant filed separate written statements, taking kindred stand that the promissory notes were not executed by him as pleaded in the plaint, but were obtained from him in blank forms in 1996 paying only a lesser amount and