GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) ALL these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 2-3-1987 rendered in O. S. Nos. 109, 118, 120 and 327 of 1980 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur. As all the suits are filed for recovery of amounts on the basis of Khathas and are between the same parties, the trial court conducted common trial in all the suits. On behalf of the plaintiff (M/s. Kamadhenu Pesticides) in O. S. Nos. 109, 118 and 120 of 1980, P. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined. P. W. 1 worked as Accountant of the Plaintiff-firm. P. W. 2 succeeded P. W. 1. P. W. 3 is a partner of the plaintiff. Exs. A-1 to A-609 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff-firm. On behalf of the defendants (M/s. Venkateswara Agro Agencies and M/s. Jayalakshmi Enterprises), D. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined. D. W. 1 is working as an Accountant in M/s. Venkateswara Agro Agencies, Guntur. D. W. 2 is a partner of M/s. Venkateswara Agro Agencies. D. W. 3 is working as Clerk in M/s. Jayalakshmi Enterprises. Exs. B-1 to B-122 were marked on their behalf. ( 2 ) ON a consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the court below dismissed O. S. No. 109/1980 and partly decreed the other suits i. e. , O. S. Nos. 118, 120 and 327 of 1980. All these appeals arise out of the said common judgment. For the sake of convenience, M/s. Kamadhenu Pesticides is referred to as M/s. Kamadhenu, M/s. Jayalakshmi Enterprises is referred to as M/s. Jayalakshmi and M/s. Venkateswara Agro Agencies is referred to as M/s. Venkateswara. ( 3 ) WE shall now deal with the contentions raised in each appeal with reference to the pleadings in each suit and the findings arrived at thereon by the court below. A. S. No. 2729/1987 and A. S. No. 2170/1987 (arising out of O. S. NO. 120/1980): O. S. No. 120/1980 is filed for recovery of Rs. 69,650. 74 by M/s. Kamadhenu against M/s. Jayalakshmi. The case of the plaintiff is that they appointed M/s. Jayalakshmi as dealer of pesticides in Guntur District. M/s. Jayalakshmi opened katha and purchased pesticides from them on credit basis from time to time and thus became due to a tune of Rs. 45,414. 74 towards principal besides interest of Rs. 24,236. 69,650. 74 by M/s. Kamadhenu against M/s. Jayalakshmi. The case of the plaintiff is that they appointed M/s. Jayalakshmi as dealer of pesticides in Guntur District. M/s. Jayalakshmi opened katha and purchased pesticides from them on credit basis from time to time and thus became due to a tune of Rs. 45,414. 74 towards principal besides interest of Rs. 24,236. 00 (totalling to Rs. 69,650. 74 ). Subsequently, M/s. Jayalakshmi wanted the plaintiff to supply the pesticides to M/s. Venkateswara Agro Agencies and debit the same to their joint khata. For the debts due under the joint katha, they filed a separate suit. In respect of the amount due in the present suit, it is the case of the plaintiff that M/s Jayalakshmi alone is liable to pay the same. Even though notice dated 21-2-1980 was issued by them, M/s. Jayalakshmi did not pay the amount due. Hence, the suit. ( 4 ) THE case of the defendants viz. , M/s. Jayalakshmi, as reflected in their written statement, is that the suit account is false. The plaintiff appointed M/s. Jayalakshmi agreeing to pay 2% turn over discount and 4% plantomane turnover discount besides commission. They deposited Rs. 5,000/- with the plaintiff as security deposit. The plaintiff supplied stocks to M/s. Jayalakshmi from 1-9-1978 onwards and later without their knowledge and consent the plaintiff made arrangement with M/s. Venkateswara for supply of stocks under various despatch advises. When they asked the plaintiff about the said arrangement, one Mr. Ghouse Mohiuddin, sales officer of the plaintiff, wrote a letter dt. 10. 11. 1978 to them stating that the arrangement with M/s. Venkateswara was only for a limited purpose and that it would not affect the business dealing with M/s. Jayalakshmi and assured that they would give discount to M/s. Jayalakshmi on the despatch advises issued in the name of M/s. Venkateswara. Therefore, M/s. Jayalakshmi agreed for the said arrangement and to forward the despatch advices in the name of M/s. Venkateswara. The plaintiff has not shown in their account the security deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- lying with them. On 21. 4. 1979, one Nabalekha, one of the partners of the plaintiff, obtained a letter from M/s. Jayalakshmi that the amount due as on that day was Rs. 13,000/ -. The plaintiff has not shown in their account the security deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- lying with them. On 21. 4. 1979, one Nabalekha, one of the partners of the plaintiff, obtained a letter from M/s. Jayalakshmi that the amount due as on that day was Rs. 13,000/ -. The plaintiff is bound to credit the discounts and commission payable to them before settling any amount as due and payable by them. ( 5 ) THE court below, on an appreciation of the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties on the basis of the above pleadings, held that there are several corrections in pages 147 and 150 of Exs. A-1 and A-5-kathas and none of the corrections were initialed either by P. W. 1 or P. W. 2 or by any other person, that even though it is established that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid by M/s. Jayalakshmi under Exs. B-120 and B-121 and M/s. Kamadhenu withdrew the same on 4-8-1978, the accounts of M/s. Kamadhenu do not reflect the said amount and that those circumstances show that the accounts of M/s. Kamadhenu were not properly maintained. Further, having regard to the evidence of P. W. 2 that there are no credits in the account of M/s. Kamadhenu of the commission due to M/s. Jayalakshmi, the court below held that M/s. Jayalakshmi is entitled for commission @ 2. 5%, discount @ 2. 5% besides discount over plantomon turnover @ 4%, (totaling to 9% ). Taking into account the admission of D. W. 3 to the effect that except in respect of the security deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- there is no difference in between the kathas of M/s. Jayalakshmi and M/s. Kamadhenu, the court below held that the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs. 36,328. 74 towards principal amount, after deducting a sum of Rs. 4,086. 00 towards commission and discounts (aggregating to 9%) plus the security deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- from out of the total principal amount of Rs. 45,414. 74 claimed in the plaint. Insofar as interest is concerned, the court below held that since no evidence is adduced by the plaintiff regarding the liability of interest, the plaintiff is not entitled for any interest. 5,000/- from out of the total principal amount of Rs. 45,414. 74 claimed in the plaint. Insofar as interest is concerned, the court below held that since no evidence is adduced by the plaintiff regarding the liability of interest, the plaintiff is not entitled for any interest. ( 6 ) ATTACKING the said finding of the court below, the learned counsel for M/s. Kamadhenu, appellant-plaintiff in A. S. No. 2729 of 1987, contended that as M/s. Jayalakshmi could not cope up with the business, the plaintiff proposed to appoint M/s. Venkateswara as a dealer. But, the appointment of dealership could not be finalized immediately thereafter and till such time i. e. , between 21-10-1978 and 9-11-1978 stocks were supplied to M/s. Venkateswara through M/s. Jayalakshmi. After 9. 11. 1978, account was opened in the name of M/s. Venkateswara. However, the suit transaction pertains to the period prior to 20-10-1978. As there is no dispute about the supply of stocks to M/s. Jayalakshmi prior to 20-10-1978 and in view of the admission of D. W. 3 about the correctness of the katha, the court below ought to have decreed the suit for the entire principal amount. According to the learned counsel, the court below is not justified in deducting the security deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- and the amount towards commission and discounts from the principal amount. Learned counsel contended that there is no proof that M/s. Jayalakshmi is entitled to the above amounts. ( 7 ) BUT, admittedly, stocks were supplied to M/s. Jayalakshmi by the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiffs own witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 categorically admitted in their evidence that M/s. Jayalakshmi is entitled for discounts and commission but no such commission or discount was paid by the plaintiff to M/s. Jayalakshmi. Even the katha maintained by the plaintiff in respect of M/s. Jayalakshmi does not reflect about the crediting of those amounts in the name of M/s. Jayalakshmi. It is not the case of the plaintiff that as per the terms of the agreement between the parties M/s. Jayalakshmi is not entitled for any commission or trade discount. On the other hand, P. W. 2 admitted that there is a distributorship agreement between the plaintiff and M/s. Jayalakshmi, containing the terms and conditions of transactions and commissions. But, the said agreement is not produced in evidence. On the other hand, P. W. 2 admitted that there is a distributorship agreement between the plaintiff and M/s. Jayalakshmi, containing the terms and conditions of transactions and commissions. But, the said agreement is not produced in evidence. Thus, the court below drew an adverse inference against the plaintiff and rightly held that M/s. Jayalakshmi is entitled for discount and commission. Similarly, the accounts of the plaintiff also do not reflect the security deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- which was paid by M/s. Jayalakshmi under Exs. B. 120 and B-121. D. W. 3 categorically stated in his evidence that the plaintiff had withdrawn the said amount on 4. 8. 1978. The court below observed that the learned advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff was not able to explain the non-mentioning of the above amount in the katha. Under these circumstances, the court below held that M/s. Jayalakshmi was entitled for the return of the said amount. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the court below is perfectly justified in passing a decree for the principal amount, after deducting the security deposit amount and the amount representing commission and trade discount. The contention advanced by the appellant in A. S. No. 2729/1987 is therefore rejected. Consequently, A. S. No. 2729 of 1987 is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant-defendant in A. S. No. 2170/1987, contended that in the absence of any clinching material to prove the claim of the plaintiff the court below is not justified in passing a decree against them. But, in the light of the clear-cut admission of their own witness i. e. , D. W. 3, who deposed that the accounts of the parties except the sum of Rs. 5,000/- are true and correct and that there is no difference in between their katha and the katha of M/s. Kamadhenu, it has be held that there is no substance in the contention of the appellant-defendant and therefore the same is rejected. Taking aid of the admission of P. W. 1 in his evidence to the effect that the turnover of business of M/s. Kamadhenu was about Rs. 18 lakhs, learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that they are entitled to a sum of Rs. Taking aid of the admission of P. W. 1 in his evidence to the effect that the turnover of business of M/s. Kamadhenu was about Rs. 18 lakhs, learned counsel for the appellant tried to contend that they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 32,561-00 towards commission on the aforementioned amount and the court below has grossly erred in not awarding the same in their favour. But the said plea raised by M/s. Jayalakshmi is not supported by any evidence. Except raising a bald plea, the defendants did not make any attempt to substantiate the said contention by producing concrete evidence in that regard. Even D. W. 3, who was examined on behalf of M/s. Jayalakshmi after the examination of P. W. 1, did not whisper about their entitlement for commission as quantified by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, we are of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of commission is only based on hypothetical assumption and we are not inclined to accept the same. For the foregoing reasons, we find no substance in the appeal filed by M/s. Jayalakshmi against the decree in O. S. No. 120/1980. Consequently, A. S. No. 2170/1987 is liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) A. S. NO. 2788 of 1987 and A. S. No. 8 of 1988 (arising out of O. . No. 118 of 1980): O. S. No. 118/1980 is filed by M/s Kamadhenu for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,16,741. 89 from M/s. Jayalakshmi and M/s. Venkateswara. This suit pertains to the transactions between 20. 10. 1978 to 9. 11. 1978. According to the plaintiff, during the above period, transactions took place under joint katha. M/s. Jayalakshmi was appointed as their dealer in Guntur District, who purchased pesticides from them from time to time by operating a katha. By October 1978 M/s. Jayalakshmi became due in a sum of Rs. 45,414. 74 besides interest @ 18% p. a. Subsequently, M/s. Jayalakshmi instructed the plaintiff to make supplies to M/s Venkateswara and debit the same in the katha opened jointly in the names of M/s. Jayalakshmi and M/s. Venkateswara. Accordingly, supplies were made under the joint katha and a sum of Rs. 1,72,250. 37 fell due upto 9-11-1978. 45,414. 74 besides interest @ 18% p. a. Subsequently, M/s. Jayalakshmi instructed the plaintiff to make supplies to M/s Venkateswara and debit the same in the katha opened jointly in the names of M/s. Jayalakshmi and M/s. Venkateswara. Accordingly, supplies were made under the joint katha and a sum of Rs. 1,72,250. 37 fell due upto 9-11-1978. As stocks were supplied at the instance of M/s. Jayalakshmi, both M/s. Jayalakshmi and M/s. Venkateswara were jointly and severally liable for the amount due. Subsequently, M/s. Venkateswara itself was appointed as dealer of the plaintiff and it became liable to certain amount, in respect of which a separate suit is filed against them. Despite repeated demands and notice dated 21-2-1980, the defendants failed to repay the said amount due. Hence, the suit. ( 10 ) M/s. Jayalakshmi (D-1 to D-3 in the suit) filed a written statement contending that the account of the plaintiff is false. The plaintiff appointed M/s. Jayalakshmi as Distributor for Guntur District on payment of distributor commission and 2% over turn over discount and 4% plantomone special discount. M/s. Jayalakshmi deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as security deposit. The plaintiff supplied stocks to them from 1-9-1978 onwards and later without their knowledge and consent, the plaintiff made arrqngement with M/s. Venkateswara for supply of stock under despatch advises. When M/s. Jayalakshmi asked explanation of the plaintiff, one Mr. Ghouse Mohiuddin, sales officer of the plaintiff, wrote a letter dt. 10-11-1978 to them stating that the arrangement with M/s. Venkateswara was only for a limited purpose and that it would not affect the business dealings with M/s. Jayalakshmi and further assured that they would give discount to M/s. Jayalakshmi on the despatch advises issued in the name of M/s. Venkateswara. Therefore, M/s. Jayalakshmi agreed for the said arrangement and forwarded the despatch advises in the name of M/s. Venkateswara. The despatch advises so forwarded are D. A. Nos. 524, 537, 535, 538, 530, 565, 579 and 589. It is further contended that between 25-10-1978 and 20. 11. 1978, M/s. Jayalakshmi made payments in a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- direct to the plaintiff i. e. , more than the amounts covered by the despatch advices forwarded by M/s. Jayalakshmi. Thus, the latter transactions were exclusively between the plaintiff and M/s. Venkateswara and that M/s. Jayalakkshmi had nothing to do with those latter transactions. 11. 1978, M/s. Jayalakshmi made payments in a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- direct to the plaintiff i. e. , more than the amounts covered by the despatch advices forwarded by M/s. Jayalakshmi. Thus, the latter transactions were exclusively between the plaintiff and M/s. Venkateswara and that M/s. Jayalakkshmi had nothing to do with those latter transactions. The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 109/1980 against M/s. Venkateswara for recovery of Rs. 60,139. 75 and another suit O. S. No. 120/1980 against M/s. Jayalakshmi for recovery of Rs. 69, 650. 74. M/s. Venkateswara filed O. S. No. 327/1980 against the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 60,695. 60. The amounts covered by the despatch advices forwarded by these defendants, in a sum of Rs. 1,49,064. 50, was already paid to the plaintiff much earlier and the plaintiff has categorically admitted the same in their written statement filed in O. S. No. 327/1980 and thus there is no amount due to the plaintiff. These defendants never instructed the plaintiff to make supplies to M/s. Venkateswara and open joint katha. No supplies were made at the instance of M/s. Jayalakshmi. M/s. Jayalakshmi is not concerned with the suit amount. On 21-4-1979, one Nabalekha representing the plaintiff, obtained a letter from M/s. Jayalakshmi that the amount due as on that day was Rs. 13,000/ -. Under the above circumstances, it is prayed for the dismissal of the suit. ( 11 ) M/s. Venkateswara (D-4 to D-6) filed written statement contending that these defendants have nothing to do with M/s. Jayalakshmi and the supplies made to it by plaintiff. In October 1978, these defendants started business dealing with the plaintiff, for which a separate katha was opened in the books of the plaintiff in October 1978. The alleged joint katha is false. The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 109/1980 against these defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,695. 60 and for the very same amount these defendants filed O. S. No. 327/1980 against the plaintiff. There was no agreement for payment of interest. The suit claim is wholly misconceived and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 12 ) ON a consideration of the evidence adduced by both parties on the above pleadings, the court below held that the plaintiff failed to produce any document authorizing them to open joint account in the name of M/s. Jayalakshmi and M/s. Venkateswara. The suit claim is wholly misconceived and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 12 ) ON a consideration of the evidence adduced by both parties on the above pleadings, the court below held that the plaintiff failed to produce any document authorizing them to open joint account in the name of M/s. Jayalakshmi and M/s. Venkateswara. In regard to the liability of the defendants, the court below held that taking advantage of some dealings with the plaintiff by M/s. Venkateswara, the plaintiff tried to involve M/s. Venkateswara also in the transactions which took place between plaintiff and M/s. Jayalakshmi and therefore held that M/s. Venkateswara are not liable to pay any amount in the present suit. Having regard to the fact that M/s. Jayalakshmi had issued Ex. A-296-cheque on 10-9-1979 for a sum of Rs. 1,72,250. 37 for the transactions that took place between M/s. Jayalakshmi and plaintiff, which was dishonoured subsequently, the court below drew an inference that M/s. Jayalakshmi was alone liable to pay the amount covered by the said cheque and in view of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 that the accounts between plaintiff and M/s. Jayalakshmi was not settled and that commission was also not paid to M/s. Jayalakshmi, the court below held that the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,56,747. 87 after deducting a sum of Rs. 15,502. 50 from out of the cheque amount of Rs. 1,72,250. 37. The court below, however, did not award any interest. A decree was accordingly passed for a sum of Rs. 1,56,747. 87 against M/s. Jayalakshmi. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for M/s. Kamadhenu, appellant-plaintiff in A. S. No. 2788/1987, contended that the court below is not justified in disbelieving the case set up by the plaintiff about joint katha opened by the plaintiff in the names of M/s. Jayalakshmi and M/s. Venkateswara. But, even though the plaintiff took the plea that on the instructions of M/s. Jayalakshmi stocks were supplied to M/s. Venkateswara under a joint katha opened in the names of both M/s. Jayalakshmi and M/s. Venkateswara, not even a single scrap of paper is filed into court to substantiate the said contention. Even the witnesses who were examined by the plaintiff viz. , P. Ws. 1 and 2 did not support the said contention. On the contrary, they made certain admissions. Even the witnesses who were examined by the plaintiff viz. , P. Ws. 1 and 2 did not support the said contention. On the contrary, they made certain admissions. P. W. 1 admitted that there was no arrangement in writing between plaintiff and M/s. venkateswara and M/s. Jayalakshmi for supply of goods through M/s. Jayalakshmi. They did not obtain any letter of consent from the defendants for supply of goods under the said arrangement. P. W. 1 further admitted that there is no letter of authorization from M/s. Jayalakshmi directing supply of goods to M/s. Venkateswara in their account. P. W. 2 also admitted that there is no letter of authority either from M/s. Jayalakshmi or from Ms/. Venkateswara to have a joint account. The above admissions of P. W. 1 and 2 are sufficient to hold that there was no such tripartite arrangement between the plaintiff and M/s. Jayalakshmi and M/s. Venkateswara. In the light of the above admissions, the court below rightly held the issue against the plaintiff. ( 14 ) TAKING support from the contents of Ex. B-38-letter, wherein M/s. Jayalakshmi was intimated that stocks covered by invoices viz. , Exs. A-15, A-17, A-19, A-23, A-24 and A-29 were sent directly to M/s. Venkateswara, learned counsel contends that the correctness of the intimation under Ex. B-38 having not been challenged by M/s. Venkateswara, the court below ought to have held that the stocks were directly despatched to M/s. Venkateswara in which case M/s. Venkateswara is also liable along with M/s. Jayalakshmi. But, first of all the story put forward by the plaintiff in respect of joint katha having not been established by the plaintiff, it is hard to believe that the stocks sent under Exs. A-15, A-17, A-19, A-23, A-24 and A-29, were sent directly to M/s. venkateswara through M/s. Jayalakshmi. Moreover, a perusal of the contents in the invoices about which a reference is allegedly made in Ex. B-38 viz. , Ex. A-15, A-17, A-19, A-23, A-24 and A-29, makes it clear that the stocks under those invoices were sent direct to M/s. Jayalakshmi and no mention whatsoever is made about M/s. Venkateswara nor was there any endorsement similar to the one which was allegedly made on some of the invoices to the effect that those stocks were intended to be sent through M/s. Jayalakshmi, is seen on the said invoices. Above all, the alleged reference made to the contents in Ex. B-38 letter loses its significance in view of the admissions of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 in their evidence. P. W. 1 admitted in his evidence that since beginning the supply was in the name of M/s. Jayalakshmi, that there is nothing to show that M/s. Venkateswara is jointly liable for Rs. 1,72,000/- and that the plaintiff obtained cheque for Rs. 1,72,000 from M/s. Jayalakshmi alone and no such cheque was obtained from M/s. Venkateswara. When the said cheque was dishonoured, they did not issue any notice to M/s. Venkateswara. P. W. 2 also deposed that there is no letter of authority either from M/s. Jayalakshmi or from M/s. Venkateswara to have a joint account. Therefore, in view of the above admissions, the contention which is sought to be raised on the basis of a portion of the contents in Ex. B-38 cannot be countenanced. ( 15 ) IT is further contended that the Despatch Advices addressed by plaintiff to M/s. Venkateswara (Exs. A-16, A-18, A-20, A-22, A-28, A-30 and A-35) would clearly establish the liability of M/s. Venkateswara. But, the court below observed that the corresponding invoices were not sent to M/s. Venkateswara. The court below observed that the corresponding invoices were, in fact, sent to M/s. Jayalakshmi. In the absence of receipt of corresponding invoices by M/s. Venkateswara, M/s. Venkateswara cannot be mulcted with any liability. Therefore, it cannot be held that the above Despatch Advices allegedly sent by the plaintiff would prove that stocks were sent to M/s. Venkateswara under the above Despatch Advices and the court below was right in disbelieving those Despatch Advices. For the foregoing reasons, we find no substance in the appeal filed by M/s. Kamadhenu against the decree in O. S. No. 118/1980. Consequently, A. S. NO. 2788/1987 is liable to be dismissed. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for M/s. Jayalakshmi, appellant-defendants in A. S. No. 8/1988, mainly contended that the court below erred in fastening the entire liability on M/s. Jayalakshmi. According to the learned counsel, even though M/s. Venkateswara admitted the receipt of goods under Despatch Advices Exs. A-14, 16, 18, 22, 28, 30, 35 and 609, the court below wrongly held that M/s. Venkateswara is not liable for the suit amount jointly along with M/s. Jayalakshmi. According to the learned counsel, even though M/s. Venkateswara admitted the receipt of goods under Despatch Advices Exs. A-14, 16, 18, 22, 28, 30, 35 and 609, the court below wrongly held that M/s. Venkateswara is not liable for the suit amount jointly along with M/s. Jayalakshmi. A perusal of those Despatch Advices leaves no doubt in our mind that the transactions under those Advices were direct transactions between plaintiff and M/s. Venkateswara. But, in order to give colour that those transactions were pursuant to the joint katha, an endorsement to the effect Through M/s. Jayalakshmi is made on the top of those documents. All those documents are carbon copies whereas the endorsements are made with ink-ball point pens at a later point of time. Had there been any such arrangement between the parties, the author of the documents would certainly have made such an endorsement at the time of preparation of those documents itself. The fact that the endorsements appear in separate ink would itself give rise to any amount of suspicion about the authenticity of such endorsements. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that those endorsements were made at a later point of time only to suit the stand taken by the plaintiff in the present suit. Further, there is no mention as to any agency in any one of the documents. Admittedly, no document to the above effect is produced in evidence. Above all, the fact that the blank cheque given by M/s. Jayalakshmi was filed by the plaintiff for a sum equivalent to the suit amount and was presented to M/s. Jayalakshmis banker for encashment, for which M/s. Jayalakshmi raised no objection, is a strong circumstances which would go against the contention of M/s. Jayalakshmi that the transactions are joint transactions. For the above reason, the court below is perfectly justified in holding that the transactions under Exs. A-14, 16, 18, 22, 28, 30, 35 and 609 are direct transactions between plaintiff and M/s. Venkateswara. In view of the above discussion, the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant on the basis of the above Despatch Advices is negatived. Consequently, A. S. No. 8/1988 is liable to be dismissed. ( 17 ) A. S. NO. 2716/1987 (arising out of O. S. No. 109/1980) and A. S. No. 2706/1987 (arising out of O. S. No. 327/1980): O. S. NO. Consequently, A. S. No. 8/1988 is liable to be dismissed. ( 17 ) A. S. NO. 2716/1987 (arising out of O. S. No. 109/1980) and A. S. No. 2706/1987 (arising out of O. S. No. 327/1980): O. S. NO. 109/1980 is filed by M/s. Kamadhenu Pesticides for recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,139. 75 from M/s. Venkateswara. Whereas, O. S. No. 327/1980 is filed by M/s. Venkateswara for recovery of Rs. 60,695. 60 from M/s. Kamadhenu. The transactions in these suits pertain to the period from 11. 11. 1978 to 31. 3. 1979. The case of M/s. Kamadhenu, plaintiff in the suit, is that originally M/s. Jayalakshmi was appointed as dealer of M/s. Kamadhenu who purchased material for some time from M/s. Kamadhenu on credit basis by opening katha from time to time. But thereafter, M/s. Jayalakshmi wanted the plaintiff to supply the pesticides to the 1st defendant M/s. Venkateswara. M/s. Jayalakshmi became liable to a tune of Rs. 1,72,250. 37 to the plaintiff under the joint katha. While so, it is alleged that, subsequently i. e. , in the year 1978 M/s. Venkateswara was appointed as sole distributor and that they purchased pesticides on credit basis by opening individual katha. Under the said katha, M/s. Venkateswara became liable to pay a sum of Rs. 37,381. 48 besides interest of Rs. 22,758. 28 (in all a sum of Rs. 60,139. 75) up to the date of filing of the suit. It is further alleged that M/s. Kamadhenu filed a separate suit for the recovery of the amount due under the joint katha opened by M/s. Venkateswara and M/s. Jayalakshmi. It is further alleged that M/s. Venkateswara is also liable to pay interest at 18% p. a. on the amount due as per the trade usage and custom and also as per the agreement between them. In spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dated 21-2-1980, the M/s. Venkateswara failed to pay the amount due to the plaintiff M/s. Kamadhenu. Hence, the suit. ( 18 ) THE defendants viz. , M/s. Venkateswara filed written statement contending that the katha filed along with the plaint is incorrect. The contention of the plaintiff M/s. Kamadhenu about the alleged opening of a joint katha in the name of M/s. Venkateswara and M/s. Jayalakshmi was denied by the defendants. Hence, the suit. ( 18 ) THE defendants viz. , M/s. Venkateswara filed written statement contending that the katha filed along with the plaint is incorrect. The contention of the plaintiff M/s. Kamadhenu about the alleged opening of a joint katha in the name of M/s. Venkateswara and M/s. Jayalakshmi was denied by the defendants. The liability fixed on both of them by the plaintiff to a tune of Rs. 1,72,250. 37 under the alleged joint katha and the individual liability fixed on this defendant M/s. Venkateswara to a tune of Rs. 37,381. 48 was also further denied. It is contended that M/s. Venkateswara is not associated with M/s. Jayalakshmi nor did they ever purchase goods at the instance of M/s. Jayalakshmi. It is further contended that according to the katha opened by M/s. Venkateswara for the transactions that took place from about October 1978, it is the plaintiff-firm which is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 90,835. 21 to the 1st defendant-firm and that the defendants need not pay any amount to the plaintiff. The katha is full and complete between the parties except in respect of supply of goods by plaintiff to the 1st defendant-firm under Despatch Advices Nos. 524 dt. 20-10-1978 and 550 dt. 30-10-1978. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- is covered by the above two transactions. According to the defendants, in respect of the above two transactions, the plaintiff failed to send invoices and, therefore, those two transactions were not entered in the katha. Thus, after deducting the above sum of Rs. 40,000/-, the plaintiff is still liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,835. 21 to M/s. Venkateswara towards principal amount. It is further contended that M/s. Venkateswara returned goods worth Rs. 53,082. 67 on 28-12-1978 and Rs. 44,625/- on 30-12-1978 to the plaintiff and the plaintiff having accepted the same failed to give any credit to their account in the katha. The claim for interest at 18% is untenable. To the notice issued by the plaintiff, the defendants issued a reply notice dated 14-4-1980 denying the false claim made by the plaintiff. In view of the above, it is contended that the claim made by the plaintiff is untenable. ( 19 ) O. S. NO. 327/1980 is filed by M/s. Venkateswara for recovery of Rs. 60,695. 60 from M/s. Kamadhenu. It is the case of the plaintiff herein viz. In view of the above, it is contended that the claim made by the plaintiff is untenable. ( 19 ) O. S. NO. 327/1980 is filed by M/s. Venkateswara for recovery of Rs. 60,695. 60 from M/s. Kamadhenu. It is the case of the plaintiff herein viz. , M/s. Venkateswara that the defendant viz. , M/s. Kamadhenu has offered the sale of pesticides either by cash bills or on credit basis agreeing to give discount of 14% on invoice prices and a further discount of 2% in the event the total purchases exceed Rs. 4,00,000/ -. For the transactions that took place between the parties, M/s. Kamadhenu opened a katha with M/s. Venkateswara in October 1978. The details of the purchases and their value were entered in the khata on the basis of the invoices issued by M/s. Kamadhenu from time to time. However, it is alleged that M/s. Kamadhenu failed to issue two invoices in respect of supply of goods to the plaintiff under Despatch Advice Nos. 524 dt. 20. 10. 1978 and 550 dated 30. 10. 1978. The approximate amount relating to both the above despatch advices is Rs. 40,000/ -. Under the katha, an amount of Rs. 90,835. 21 is due and payable by M/s. Kamadhenu to the plaintiff. Even after deducting the invoice amounts covered by the above two Despatch Advices, a sum of Rs. 50,835. 21 is still due from M/s. Kamadhenu. As the turnover of purchases crossed Rs. 4,00,000/-, the defendants have to pay 2% discount on the total purchases worth Rs. 4,93,080. 85, which comes to Rs. 9,860. 38. Thus, the total amount due and payable by the defendants would come to Rs. 60,695. 59. Instead of paying the above amount to the plaintiff, the defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff with false allegations and they tried to implicate M/s. Jayalakshmi in their dealings. Thereafter, the plaintiff gave suitable reply but without giving any further reply, the defendant filed O. S. Nos. 109, 118 and 120 of 1980. It is contended that the claim made by the defendant in those suits is false. As the defendant failed to pay the amount due in this suit, the present suit is filed. ( 20 ) M/s. Kamadhenu filed written statement contending that the suit is a counter blast to the suits filed by them in O. S. Nos. 109, 118 and 120 of 1980. As the defendant failed to pay the amount due in this suit, the present suit is filed. ( 20 ) M/s. Kamadhenu filed written statement contending that the suit is a counter blast to the suits filed by them in O. S. Nos. 109, 118 and 120 of 1980. They appointed M/s. Jayalakshmi as their dealer in Guntur District. M/s. Jayalakshmi purchased pesticides from them from time to time by operating a katha and by 20-10-1978 they became due in a sum of Rs. 45,414. 74 besides interest @ 18% p. a. Subsequently, it is alleged that M/s. Jayalakshmi instructed the plaintiff to make supplies to the plaintiff herein and debit the same in the katha opened jointly by M/s. Jayalakshmi and M/s. Venkateswara. Accordingly, the plaintiff was purchasing through M/s. Jayalakshmi and from 20-10-1978 to 9-11-1978, a sum of Rs. 1,72,250. 37 and along with interest a sum of Rs. 2,16,741. 89 fell due to the defendant. This defendant filed O. S. No. 118/1980 for recovery of the said amount. Subsequently, it is alleged that the plaintiff herein was appointed as dealer by the defendant and in respect of the supplies which were made directly to the plaintiff from 11-11-1978 to 29-12-1978, the plaintiff became liable in a sum of Rs. 37,381. 48 besides interest. It is further contended that the accounts of the plaintiff is false. For the stocks supplied to the plaintiff through M/s. Jayalakshmi from 23-10-1978 to 9-11-1978 only a sum of Rs,1,49,864. 50 was paid by the plaintiff, which was duly given credit to in the suit filed in O. S. No. 118. 1980. The entry dated 14-11-1978 showing payment of Rs. 10,000/- was never received by this defendant. So also, the entry dated 16-12-1978 showing payment of Rs. 15,000/- is a bogus entry. The plaintiff has shown as if material worth Rs. 53,000/- and Rs. 44,825/- was sent back to this defendant on 28-12-1978 and 30-12-1978 respectively and it is contended that the plaintiff never sent such material nor the same was received by this defendant. It is contended that the accounts of the plaintiff are all manipulated. If the plaintiff made any discount to its customers, the same cannot be debited as against the account of this defendant. For the supplies made through M/s. Jayalakshmi, the value of which comes to Rs. 1,49,864. It is contended that the accounts of the plaintiff are all manipulated. If the plaintiff made any discount to its customers, the same cannot be debited as against the account of this defendant. For the supplies made through M/s. Jayalakshmi, the value of which comes to Rs. 1,49,864. 50, the same was already given credit to and the plaintiff wrongly debited a sum of Rs. 1,29,167. 04. ( 21 ) THE court below while holding that the katha maintained by M/s. Kamadhenu did not reflect the true state of affairs, accepted the plea taken by M/s. Venkateswara that M/s. Kamadhenu did not give credit to the value of the goods worth Rs. 97,000/- which were returned to M/s. Kamadhenu under Exs. B-33 and B-34. Further, while believing the payment of Rs. 15,000/- made by M/s. Venkateswara, it held that the said payment was not given credit to by M/s. Kamadhenu. Summing up its discussion, the court below found that M/s. Kamadhenu had to get Rs. 77,786. 45 from M/s. Venkateswara whereas M/s Venkateswara had to get Rs. 97,707. 67 and also a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (in total a sum of Rs. 1,12,707. 67) from M/s. Kamadhenu. If the amount payable to M/s. Kamadhenu i. e. , Rs. 77,786. 45 is deducted from the amount payable to M/s. Venkateswara, the it is M/s. Kamadhenu which became due to M/s. Venkateswara in a sum of Rs. 34,921. 22. In view of the above findings, the court below dismissed O. S. No. 109/1980 and partly decreed the suit filed by M/s. Venkateswara viz. , O. S. No. 327/1980 for a sum of Rs. 34,921. 22 against M/s. Kamadhenu. ( 22 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for M/s. Kamadhenu, appellant-plaintiff in A. S. No. 2716/1987 and appellant-defendant in A. S. NO. 276 of 1987, contends that the court below went wrong in disbelieving Ex. A-2-katha and believing Exs. B-33 and 34. Insofar as the finding of the court below on Ex. A-2 is concerned we are in total agreement with the finding of the court below. The court below rightly observed that there are certain corrections and interpolations in Ex. A-2, which were not initialed by anybody. As a matter of fact, even the averments in the plaintiff filed by M/s. Kamadhenu are vague and incomplete. A-2 is concerned we are in total agreement with the finding of the court below. The court below rightly observed that there are certain corrections and interpolations in Ex. A-2, which were not initialed by anybody. As a matter of fact, even the averments in the plaintiff filed by M/s. Kamadhenu are vague and incomplete. The drafting of the plaints is so callous that they do not even contain the necessary particulars as to when the transactions between the plaintiff and defendant took place, when they came to an end and what are the transactions which are in dispute and the period during which the said amount became due etc. That apart, the whole case of the plaintiff is based on an alleged agreement between the parties but the plaintiff did not choose to file it into court. Therefore, under those circumstances, the court below was perfectly justified in not placing any reliance on Ex. A-2 katha. ( 23 ) COMING to the next contention in regard to Exs. B-33 and B-34, it is the case of M/s. Venkateswara that the goods worth Rs. 97,000/- received from M/s. Kamadhenu under two Despatch Advices i. e. , Exs. A-14 and A-22 were returned by them to M/s. Kamadhenu under Exs. B-33 and B-34 and having received the same, M/s. Kamadhenu failed to give credit to the same in their account. However, M/s. Kamadhenu denied the receipt of those goods by them. On this aspect, D. W. 2 deposed that one Abdul Salam, who is the employee of M/s. Kamadhenu signed in Ex. B-33 acknowledging receipt of the goods returned by M/s. Venkateswara and similarly one Jani, another employee of M/s. Kamadhenu signed in Ex. B-34 acknowledging receipt of the goods returned by them. P. W. 1 categorically admitted that Jani was the despatching Clerk and Abdul Salam was the Field Assistant of M/s. Kamadhenu. P. W. 1 further deposed that Jani used to receive the stocks and he was maintaining the stock register. The above evidence of P. W. 1 would establish that Jani and Abdul Salam, who were the employees of M/s. Kamadhenu received the goods sent by M/s. Venkateswara and also acknowledged receipt of the same by signing on Exs. B-33 and B-34. From the above evidence, it is clear that the goods sent by M/s. Venkateswara under Exs. B-33 and B-34 have been received by M/s. Kamadhenu. B-33 and B-34. From the above evidence, it is clear that the goods sent by M/s. Venkateswara under Exs. B-33 and B-34 have been received by M/s. Kamadhenu. P. W. 1 further deposed that the returned goods as per Exs. B-33 and B-34 were not given credit to in the account of M/s. Venkateswara. The above evidence is sufficient to hold that having received the goods worth Rs. 97,000/- under Exs. B-33 and B-34 returned by M/s. Venkateswara, M/s. Kamadhenu failed to give credit to the same in their accounts and in those circumstances the court below was right in holding that M/s. Kamadhenu is liable to reimburse the said amount to M/s. Venkateswara. We therefore see no merit in the contentions advanced by the appellant in O. S. Nos. 109 and 327 of 1980. Consequently, the appeals filed by them viz. , A. S. No. 2716/1987 and 2706/1987 are liable to be dismissed. ( 24 ) IN the result, all the appeals are dismissed confirming the common judgment and decrees passed by the court below in O. S. Nos. 109, 118, 120 and 327 of 1980. No costs.