V.M. Velumani, J.

1. These Second Appeals have been filed against the common judgment and decree dated 06.11.1998, made in A.S. Nos. 135, 134 and 131 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, reversing the common judgment and decree, dated 28.02.1997, made in O.S. Nos. 61 of 1993, 131 of 1994 and 59 of 1993, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The appellant succeeded in the Trial Court, but lost in the first appellate Court.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as appellant [P. Paramasivan], first respondent [S. Kandasamy] and second respondent [Ramalakshmi].

4. Facts of the case:

(i) The first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 59 of 1993 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, against the appellant claiming a sum of Rs. 36,720/- together with interest at 12% p.a. According to the first respondent, the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 04.05.1991 from him and executed Ex.B.1 – Promissory Note for the said amount on the same day. The appellant failed to repay the principal and interest in spite of the repeated demands and reminders. Therefore, the first respondent issued a notice [Ex.B.5] dated 05.11.1992 through his Advocate to the appellant. The appellant did not receive the said notice. Therefore, the first respondent has filed a suit in O.S. No. 59 of 1993 for the relief stated above.

(ii) The second respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 61 of 1993 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, against the appellant claiming a sum of Rs. 17,000/- together with interest at 24% p.a. According to the second respondent, the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 17,000/- on 27.06.1991 from her and executed Ex.B.4 – Promissory Note for the said amount on the same day. The appellant failed to repay the said amount and interest in spite of the repeated demands and reminders. Therefore, the first respondent issued a notice [Ex.B.7] dated 05.11.1992 through her Advocate to the appellant. The appellant did not receive the said notice. Therefore, the second respondent has filed a suit in O.S. No. 61 of 1993 for the relief stated supra.

(iii) The appellant filed written statement in both the suits denying the allegations made by the respondents 1 and 2 and submitted that he borrowed only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the month of February 1991 from the first respondent and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the month of March 1991 from the first respondent and executed two blank promissory notes signed by him on stamp papers. The appellant and the first respondent are residing in the same Street and known to each other. Therefore, believing the first respondent, he gave two blank promissory notes duly signed by him. The first respondent insisted on repayment of entire amounts borrowed by him. Therefore, the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from one Ena Konar on 14.06.1991 and repaid the entire amount together with interest to the first respondent on 14.06.1991. The first respondent promised to return the blank promissory notes, but failed to do so. The first respondent was the President of Temple Committee in Shanthi Nagar Vinayagar Temple and the appellant was a Committee Member. Due to mismanagement of the first respondent, the appellant resigned his post and misunderstanding arose between them. The appellant gave complaint on 27.08.1992 to the police and issued a notice dated 28.08.1992 to the first respondent, who did not receive the said notice. Due to misunderstanding, the first respondent has filled up the blank promissory notes and the respondents 1 and 2 have filed the suits. Therefore, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the suits, as he did not borrow Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 17,000/- and repaid the entire amount of Rs. 10,000/- borrowed from the first respondent.

(iv) The appellant filed O.S. No. 296 of 2013 before the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, against the first respondent, for return of two stamped blank promissory notes executed