LAXMAN KRISHNAJI MUSTILWAR Vs. RAMESH AMARCHAND AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise in the identical facts and circumstances. So also common questions of law are involved in these appeals, hence I propose to dispose them of by this common judgment.

(2.) BY these appeals, the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit nos. 13/81 and 12/86 namely, Laxman Krishnaji Mustilwar has challenged the judgments and decrees passed against him by both the courts below. Both the Courts below found that the documents Ext. 30 (in Civil Suit No. 13/81) and 33 (in Civil Suit No. 12/81) are not promissory notes and held that the plaintiff in both the suits are entitled to recover the amount paid by them to a defendant. The Trial court decreed the plaintiffs claim in both the suits for Rs. 13,454. 16ps. Together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till its realisation. In appeal Nos. 59/82 and 60/82 preferred against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the lower Appellate court modified the final order passed by the Trial Court and held the plaintiffs in both the suits are entitled to recover the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 8000/- only. It is the said order of the lower Appellate Court which is challenged in these appeals.

(3.) THE substantial question of law which is involved in these two appeals is : whether the documents i. e. Exh. 30 in Civil Suit No. 13/ 81 and Exh. 33 in Civil Suit No. 12/81 are promissory notes or bonds?