GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the decree and judgment passed in OS No. 49/77 on 17. 7. 1987 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Parvathipuram, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant and the defendants are the respondents herein. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the Court below. ( 3 ) THE facts that led to the filing of this appeal, in brief are as under: the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of rs. 83,000/- due under a simple mortgage bond alleging that Defendants 1 to 7 herein constitute a Hindu Joint Family and defendants 2 to 7 are the sons of the 1st defendant, who is the manager of the said joint family. The 8th defendant is a close relative of Defendants 1 to 7. The said joint family wanted to construct a Kandasari Sugar factory at Artham Village in Srikakulam district for its benefit and, accordingly, defendants 1 to 7 purchased machinery from n. E. Works Contractors Choday Surya Rao and others, on credit and in that connection, they had approached the plaintiff for financial assistance in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in order to pay the same to the said Choday surya Rao and others being purchase money. The plaintiff lent the said amount under ex. A1 mortgage bond, which was executed by Defendants 1 to 8. According to the plaintiff, the 8th defendant is a solvent person and therefore he insisted him to join as a party to Ex. A1 and accordingly he also joined in the execution of Ex. A1 as one of the parties thereto. Thus Defendants 1 to 8 have executed Ex. A1 registered mortgage bond for Rs. 50,000/- mortgaging the plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant herein passed a receipt under Ex. A2 in token of receipt of Rs. 50,000/-, which is the consideration under Ex. A1 mortgage bond. As per the terms of Ex. A1, the entire principal amount has to be paid in two equal yearly instalments of Rs. 25,000/- and the interest has to be paid every year and in case of default of payment of any one of the instalments, the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the entire amount due under Ex. A1 at once. In spite of repeated demands and Ex. 25,000/- and the interest has to be paid every year and in case of default of payment of any one of the instalments, the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the entire amount due under Ex. A1 at once. In spite of repeated demands and Ex. A3 notice, the defendants did not discharge the debt due under ex. A1. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, all the defendants opposed the suit claim of the plaintiff, by filing separate written statements. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement and Defendants 3 to 7 also filed a separate joint written statement whereas the 8th defendant filed his own written statement. It appears that the 8th defendant died during the pendency of the suit and thereupon, his son was brought on record as 9th defendant in the suit. ( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 are the father and son respectively and they have admitted constitution of Hindu Joint Family by defendants 1 to 7. They denied the purchase of machinery from National Engineering works Contractors Choday Surya Rao and others. According to them there exists no such firm and it is only a fictitious body invented by the plaintiff for purpose of this suit and to defeat the tax laws. The case of these defendants is that the said khandasari Sugar Factory at a cost of rs. 3,40,000/- was though of and established and for the benefit of the 2nd defendant alone and not for the benefit of the joint family. The 2nd defendant owns a site at artham and Sominaduvlasa vide registered sale deed dated 4. 3. 1965. He obtained license in his name bearing No. 46 from the Director of Agriculture, Government of a. P. for establishing the sugar factory and he constructed the same in the said site. In that behalf, the defendants approached the plaintiff for supply of machinery, goods and services, for erection of the factory at artham and negotiated and arrived at an agreement dated 11. 7. 1966 under Ex. B20 for supply of machinery, transportation of the same to Artham and for rendering services to erect the factory and for a sample running. At the instance of the plaintiff, the other defendants also signed on Ex. B20 agreement, which was drawn in favour of the plaintiff as proprietor of National engineering Works. 7. 1966 under Ex. B20 for supply of machinery, transportation of the same to Artham and for rendering services to erect the factory and for a sample running. At the instance of the plaintiff, the other defendants also signed on Ex. B20 agreement, which was drawn in favour of the plaintiff as proprietor of National engineering Works. It was alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff got inserted certain words on the top of Ex. B20 so as to appear that he has executed the document for and on behalf of Choday Surya Rao and others Contractors of National Engineering works but in fact no such body exists. It is the further case of the these defendants that after Ex. B-20 agreement, they have approached the A. P. State Finance corporation for a financial assistance of rs. 1,70,000/- being the half of the estimated cost of the factory. The Corporation agreed and sanctioned the loan in favour of the 2nd defendant. Thereafter, he requested the plaintiff to supply pursuant to Ex. B20 agreement the machinery of the value of rs. 1,00,000/- by paying Rs. 50,000/- as advance and asked him to submit the bills to the said Corporation for payment of the balance of Rs. 50,000/- in his favour. At that time the plaintiff insisted for execution of Ex. A1 mortgage bond as a security, and since he also insisted the other defendants they also signed on Ex. A1. They dispute the recitals in Ex. A1 regarding payment to sri Choday Surya Rao and others and obtaining voucher from him and contend that they are invented for purpose of this suit and to defeat tax laws. After execution of Ex. A1, the plaintiff supplied machinery and submitted the bills of the value of rs. 97,000/- to the Corporation wherein he stated that he has received Rs. 50,000/- from the 2nd defendant and requested the Corporation the pay the balance of Rs. 47,000/- to him. But, however, according to these defendants, the Corporation in its letter bearing No. AFC lr. KRK 661209 has valued the machinery at rs. 87,000/- and paid Rs. 43,500/-, vide d. D. No. 828975 dated 21. 5. 1966, being the half of the value. Thus, the suit bond Ex. A1 got fulfilled and became extinct. 47,000/- to him. But, however, according to these defendants, the Corporation in its letter bearing No. AFC lr. KRK 661209 has valued the machinery at rs. 87,000/- and paid Rs. 43,500/-, vide d. D. No. 828975 dated 21. 5. 1966, being the half of the value. Thus, the suit bond Ex. A1 got fulfilled and became extinct. ( 6 ) THE case of defendants 3 to 7 is that establishment of Khandasari Sugar factory was purely the venture of the 2nd defendant only and it was not meant for joint family. The factory was erected in the site owned by the 2nd defendant alone and the license was obtained in his name. The 1st defendant was only aiding the 2nd defendant. The said business was only the concern of the 2nd defendant and the joint family has nothing to do with it. The suit transaction was wholly an avyavaharica affair of the 2nd defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 have no authority to make these defendants liable for the suit transaction. These defendants are small farmers and entitled to the benefits of Act 7 of 1977. ( 7 ) THE case of the 8th defendant in his written statement was that he signed on ex. A1 mortgage bond as an attestor and he never signed on it as an executant. According to the 8th defendant, the 1st defendant represented to him that they are going to establish a sugar factory and they have to purchase machinery on credit from the plaintiff and N. E. Works Proprietors Choday surya Rao and in that connection they wanted him to be an attestor of the document. It is the further case of the 8th defendant that for signing on Ex. A1 as an attestor, the 1st defendant assured him of 1/8th share in the factory and he need not invest anything and the plaintiff also infused confidence in him in this regard. It was alleged by this defendant that it was never represented that ex. A1 was a mortgage bond and he was an executant thereto with liability. Therefore, ex. A1 was not true and it was the outcome of fraud played by the defendants and the plaintiff. The plaintiff was a joint tortfeiser and the alleged Khandasari Sugar Factory at artham was a bogus one. Ex. A1 was not supported by any consideration. A1 was a mortgage bond and he was an executant thereto with liability. Therefore, ex. A1 was not true and it was the outcome of fraud played by the defendants and the plaintiff. The plaintiff was a joint tortfeiser and the alleged Khandasari Sugar Factory at artham was a bogus one. Ex. A1 was not supported by any consideration. This defendant was an agriculturist and himself and the son of his deceased brothers have not divided their lands and plaint D schedule property belongs to his family. This defendant lastly submitted that he should be deemed to be a surety for the loan taken by defendants 1 to 7 and in case the Court holds that this defendant is also liable, the plaintiff may be directed to proceed first against A, B and C schedule properties and then against the share of this defendant in d schedule property. According to this defendant, he was a small farmer and entitled to the benefits under Act 7 of 1977. ( 8 ) BASING on the above pleadings, the court below framed the following issues? (1) Whether the suit document is true, valid and supported by consideration? (2) Whether the mortgage bond dated 27. 11. 1965 executed by all the defendants is not binding on D4 to d7? (3) Whether the mortgage bond dated 27. 11. 1965 is discharged as claimed by the Defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement? (4) Whether the 8th defendant is liable under the alleged suit mortgage bond? (5) Whether the 8th defendant has any personal liability to discharge the suit debt? (6) Whether the 8th defendant is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Madras Act IV of 1938 and as such entitled to the benefits thereunder? (7) Whether the provisions of Act 7/77 are applicable to the defendants in question and if so, whether the defendants 1, 4, 6 are not small farmer? (8) Whether the 8th defendant is entitled to claim equitable relief ? (9) To what relief?additional issues framed on 21. 6. 1983: (1) Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of the necessary party viz. , Choday veerraja Chowdary? (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable without including in a single suit all the reliefs claimed in both the suits? additional Issues framed on 21. 1. 1987: (1) Whether the suit is maintainable by being filed by an unregistered firm? 6. 1983: (1) Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of the necessary party viz. , Choday veerraja Chowdary? (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable without including in a single suit all the reliefs claimed in both the suits? additional Issues framed on 21. 1. 1987: (1) Whether the suit is maintainable by being filed by an unregistered firm? (2) Whether the suit is bad for the fact that the suit transaction is one opposed to public policy? (3) Whether the suit transactions are parts of arrangements for supply, transport and erection of K. K. S. Industry artham and the mechinisam of payment through the A. P. S. F. C. for the same? (4) Whether the suit is maintainable without being a suit for accounts in enforcement of the obligations under the contracts of supply etc. , and payment between the parties? (5) Whether the suit is maintainable without being a suit for accounts in enforcement of the obligations under the contract of supply etc. , and payment between the parties? ( 9 ) IN support of his case, the plaintiff got examined PWs. 1 and 2 and marked exsa1 to A7 documents. ( 10 ) ON the other hand, the defendants examined DWs. 1 to 6 and marked Exs. Bl to b86 documents. Exs. C1 and C2 were marked by Court and Exs. C. B. 1 to C. B. 13 were marked before the Commissioner. ( 11 ) AFTER considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Court below, as stated supra, dismissed the suit against all the defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. ( 12 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on either side. ( 13 ) IT is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff lent an amount of rs. 50,000/- to the defendants under Ex. A1 and the same was paid by him to M/s national Engineering Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others, Kakinada, on behalf of the defendants towards discharge of debt due by the defendants to the said firm in connection with the purchase of machinery etc. 50,000/- to the defendants under Ex. A1 and the same was paid by him to M/s national Engineering Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others, Kakinada, on behalf of the defendants towards discharge of debt due by the defendants to the said firm in connection with the purchase of machinery etc. , from the said firm for their sugar factory, whereas it is contended on behalf of the defendants that they never purchased any machinery from M/s national Engineering Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others and such firm was never in existence and it is a fictitious firm invented for purpose of this suit, but in fact they purchased the machinery from the plaintiff, proprietor of National engineering Works under Ex. B20 agreement and they have paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff for the machinery worth rs. 1,00,000/- asked the plaintiff to submit the bills to the State Finance Corporation for payment of the balance amount of rs. 50,000/- and at that juncture at the instance of the plaintiff they have executed ex. A1 as a surety till the amount was paid by the Corporation and subsequently the corporation paid the amount to the plaintiff and thus Ex. A1 stands discharged. According to the defendants Ex. Al is not supported by any consideration. ( 14 ) IN the light of the rival contentions, it has to be seen whether the firm M/s national Engineering Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others, Kakinada exists or not and if so whether the plaintiff made any payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the said firm on behalf of the defendants as alleged by him; whether Ex. B20 was executed by the plaintiff for himself or was it executed on behalf of any firm as alleged by the plaintiff and whether Ex. A1 stands discharged as pleaded by the defendants. ( 15 ) FIRST we will decide the point whether the plaintiff has paid Rs. 50,000/- to m/s National Engineering Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others, Kakinada on behalf of the defendants. There is a recital in Ex. A1 to the effect that the plaintiff has to pay Rs. 50,000/- under the credit bills to the said National Engineering Works contractors Choday Surya Rao and others and obtain a receipt and keep a voucher with him. There is a recital in Ex. A1 to the effect that the plaintiff has to pay Rs. 50,000/- under the credit bills to the said National Engineering Works contractors Choday Surya Rao and others and obtain a receipt and keep a voucher with him. Except the oral assertion, no piece of paper was produced by the plaintiff evidencing payment of Rs. 50,000/- to national Engineering Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others. Further PW1 deposed in his evidence that he was not present at the time of execution of Ex. A1. According to him, the ledger of the plaintiff for the years 1964/65 and 1965-66 shows the business dealings of the plaintiff with other firms. It also contains the account of national Engineering Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others and it also contains the account of Janakiramaiah and Company. If the plaintiff paid the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to National Engineering works Contractors Choday Surya Rao and others, definitely it would have been found place in the ledgers during the course of transactions. But neither the ledgers nor the other accounts marked as B1 to B19, show the alleged payment of Rs. 50,000/ -. PW1 further stated at page 40 of his deposition that the plaintiff did not pay cash to Surya Rao but only made a credit and debit entries in the accounts of the defendants and he has seen the said entries. PW2 stated in his evidence that the defendants executed Ex. A1 mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to discharge the debt of the 1st defendant in favour of Choday Surya Rao and that consideration under Ex. Al was not paid in cash. Thus the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 shows that no amount was paid under ex. A1 to the firm National Engineering works Contractors Choday Surya Rao and others. Even the accounts of the plaintiff marked as Exs. B1 to B19 do not show the alleged payment of Rs. 50,000/ -. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary proof, it cannot be held that the plaintiff made payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the said firm on behalf of defendants. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged payment. ( 16 ) ON the other hand, the evidence of pws. 1 and 2 would prove the contention of the defendants that Ex. 50,000/- to the said firm on behalf of defendants. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged payment. ( 16 ) ON the other hand, the evidence of pws. 1 and 2 would prove the contention of the defendants that Ex. A1 is not supported by consideration. Further there is also no mention in the plaint about the alleged payment of Rs. 50,000/- by the plaintiff. Further Choday Surya Rao, the brother of the plaintiff who was examined as DW5 stated in his evidence that his elder brother Saynasi rao (plaintiff) never paid Rs. 50,000/- on behalf of the 1st defendant or his son narahari (2nd defendant) or K. K. S. I, artham (the firm of the defendants ). In the light of the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 particularly the evidence of DW5 coupled with non-production of any document evidencing the payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the so-called National Engineering Works contractors Choday Surya Rao and others on behalf of the defendants, the lower Court is justified in holding that no payment of rs. 50,000/- was made by the plaintiff to the alleged firm on behalf of the defendants under Ex. A1 and Ex. A1 is not supported by consideration and mat it was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff as a surety. ( 17 ) NOW we will deal with the point whether the firm M/s National Engineering works Contractors and others exists during the suit transaction. Admittedly, the plaintiff and Choday Surya Rao are brothers. He has stated in his evidence that he does not know whether Choday Surya Rao and others Contractors of National Engineering works supplied the machinery and goods to the defendants. Again at page 21 of his deposition he stated that once or twice in 1965 or 1966 he was present when the 2nd defendant took possession of the machinery from the clerks of Surya Rao and others and that he cannot give the details of the machinery and he had nothing to do with the affairs of Surya Rao and that he happened to be present on those occasions accidentally. This is contrary to what he had stated earlier. He further stated that choday Apparao and Sanyasi Rao established National Engineering Works from 1963 or 1964 and that Apparao was not a partner. This is contrary to what he had stated earlier. He further stated that choday Apparao and Sanyasi Rao established National Engineering Works from 1963 or 1964 and that Apparao was not a partner. The said firm was leased out to Surya Rao and others in the year 1963 on an yearly rent of Rs. 12,000/ -. But neither any lease deed nor any rent receipt was produced by the plaintiff to that effect. PW1 also states that Surya Rao and others left the firm National Engineering works in 1967 or 1968 and the building and machinery was delivered to Sanyasi Rao and his son under a receipt. But no such receipt was forthcoming. PW2, an employee in National engineering Works, stated in his evidence that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the national Engineering Works and the plaintiff and his son are the owners of said firm. He also stated that Surya Rao and others have nothing to do with the National engineering Works. He also stated that he signed Ex. B20, agreement wherein the plaintiff agreed to supply the machinery to the defendants on credit. PW2 further stated that the plaintiff has no authority to execute any document on behalf of Surya rao and other Contractors of National engineering Works. Further Choday Surya rao, who is no other than the brother of the plaintiff stated as DW5 in his evidence that there is no firm with the name and style "national Engineering Works Choday Surya rao and others at Kakinada" and he never did any business personally and he has nothing to do with the operations of National engineering works or its business and the said firm is being managed by his brother, i. e. , the plaintiff, and he never entered into any agreement with the defendants and that prior to 1966, there was a partition between himself and the plaintiff in respect of their business and assets and National engineering Works fell to the share of the plaintiff. Thus, from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of DW5 goes to show that there exists a firm viz. , national Engineering Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others with separate entity and it is a fictitious body invented for the purpose of the suit, as alleged by the defendants. However, the plaintiff made an attempt through Exs. 1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of DW5 goes to show that there exists a firm viz. , national Engineering Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others with separate entity and it is a fictitious body invented for the purpose of the suit, as alleged by the defendants. However, the plaintiff made an attempt through Exs. A7 to A 12 to establish that such a firm was in existence. Exs. A7 to A12 are the letters issued by the income Tax Department wherein the assessee s name was shown as M/s National engineering Works Contractor by Ch. Surya rao and others and the status of the firm was shown as registered firm. But none of the officials of the Income Tax Department was examined to prove the same. Further when the status was shown as registered firm, nothing prevented the plaintiff to obtain a copy of registration of the firm and produce the same before the Court. The brother of the plaintiff, viz. , Choday Surya rao as DW5 states that he has nothing to do with the said firm. In these circumstances, the burden heavily lies on the plaintiff to prove the separate entity of the said firm. But, even his own witnesses PWs. 1 and 2 did not support the case of the plaintiff in this regard. ( 18 ) THE contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants approached him for a loan of Rs. 50,000/- for discharging the credit amount due to M/s National engineering Works Contractors Choday surya Rao and others by the defendants in connection with the purchase of certain machinery and accordingly he paid the said amount and got executed Ex. A1 mortgage bond. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that there was no firm like m/s National Engineering Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others and it is the plaintiff who supplied the machinery to the defendants under Ex. B20 agreement and in that connection, Ex. A1 was brought into existence as a surety but no consideration was passed thereunder. When the defendants specifically assert that no firm like M/s national Engineering Works Contracts choday Surya Rao and others exists and it is a fictitious body invented for the purpose of the suit claim, the burden heavily lies on the plaintiff to prove the factum of payment to the said firm. When the defendants specifically assert that no firm like M/s national Engineering Works Contracts choday Surya Rao and others exists and it is a fictitious body invented for the purpose of the suit claim, the burden heavily lies on the plaintiff to prove the factum of payment to the said firm. In this regard, the plaintiff could produce the accounts maintained during the course of his business, which were marked as Exs. B1 to B19. But none of these documents show any payment to the firm on behalf of the defendants. ( 19 ) IN the said facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that ex. A1 is not supported by any consideration. ( 20 ) THE further contention of the defendants is that to construct a Khandasari sugar Factory at Artham Village, they had approached the plaintiff firm for supply of machinery, transport, services for erecting the factory and for a sample running of the factory by the plaintiff at a cost of Rs. 1,40,000/-, and accordingly, they entered into an agreement under Ex. B20 with the plaintiff firm and as per the terms of Ex. B20, out of the cost of Rs. 1,40,000/-, the defendants have to pay Rs. 90,000/- at the time of delivery of the machinery and for the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the defendants have to execute a registered , mortgage bond. Thereafter, according to the defendants, they had approached the state Finance Corporation for a loan of rs. 1,70,000/- which was sanctioned and the defendants requested the plaintiff to supply, in pursuance with the agreement ex. B20, the machinery worth Rs. 1,00,000/- and paid him Rs. 50,000/- as advance and asked him to submit the bills for payment of the remaining balance of Rs. 50,000/- and at that juncture Ex. A1 was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff as a surety for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the State Finance Corporation. Originally it was agreed under Ex. B20 that the defendants have to pay Rs. 90,000/- out of the total value of Rs. 1,40,000/- to the plaintiff and for the balance of Rs. 50,000/- they will execute a simple mortgage deed mortgaging the mill machinery and factory site in favour of the plaintiff. Originally it was agreed under Ex. B20 that the defendants have to pay Rs. 90,000/- out of the total value of Rs. 1,40,000/- to the plaintiff and for the balance of Rs. 50,000/- they will execute a simple mortgage deed mortgaging the mill machinery and factory site in favour of the plaintiff. But subsequently it appears that the defendants had approached the State Finance corporation for financial assistance, which was acceded to by the Corporation. In view of the assertion made by the defendants that they requested the plaintiff to supply the machinery worth Rs. 1,00,000/- and paid an advance of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff and asked the plaintiff to submit the bills to the Corporation for receipt of the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- it has to be seen whether the balance amount has been paid by the said Corporation to the plaintiff or not. However, it is the case of the plaintiff that he entered into Ex. B20 agreement with the defendants for and on behalf of choday Surya Rao. This Ex. B20 agreement was typewritten showing the 1st party as choday Sanyasi Rao, i. e. , the plaintiff, proprietor of the National Engineering works, Kakinada, East Godavari District but subsequently the word proprietor was struck off and the words "for and on behalf of Choday Surya Rao and others contractors of were inserted in ink. Of course, this insertion was initialed by the 1st defendant. From this it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that there is a firm like M/s National Engineering Works contracts Choday Surya Rao and others. Even assuming for a moment that there exists such a firm, the plaintiff failed to establish that he made payment as agreed under the alleged Ex. A1 to such firm. The plaintiff was said to have signed on Ex. B20 for and on behalf of the said firm. But, no scrap of paper is filed evidencing that he is authorized to execute Ex. B20 for and on behalf of the said National Engineering works Contracts Choday Surya Rao and others. Further, it appears that the plaintiff had filed objections to the notice issued by the defendants in the suit, wherein he has stated that he has nothing to do with national Engineering Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others and he is not concerned with the said firm at all. Further, it appears that the plaintiff had filed objections to the notice issued by the defendants in the suit, wherein he has stated that he has nothing to do with national Engineering Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others and he is not concerned with the said firm at all. If that being the case, it is not known as to what has prompted him to sign Ex. B20 for and on behalf of the alleged said firm. Ex. B21 is the letter issued by the National engineering Works, Contractors Choday surya Rao and others in favour of the 2nd defendant quoting the rates of the machinery for the proposed Khandasari sugar Factory and it was signed by the plaintiff. ( 21 ) THE correspondence done by the a. P. State Finance Company is in the name of the NE Works Contractors Choday surya Rao and others. On this the plaintiff contends that there is firm like NE Works contractors Choday Surya Rao and others and it is a separate entity with which he has no concern. Simply because the nomenclature of a firm is in the name of a particular person or persons as styled in the present case as "n. E. Works Contractors choday Surya Rao and others", it cannot be held that the said firm belongs to such person or persons in the absence of any proof to that effect. Admittedly there is no proof adduced by the plaintiff that there is a firm like N. E. Works Contractors Choday surya Rao and others and he paid the amount under Ex. A1 to the said firm. The plaint is silent as to who represented the said firm. However, the plaintiff tried to say through pw1 that the said firm is represented by choday Surya Rao. According to PW1, the said Surya Rao is no other than the younger brother of the plaintiff. The defendants assert that they do not know as to who is choday Surya Rao at the time when they entered into Ex. B20 and it was the plaintiff with whom they entered into the said agreement. According to PW1, the said Surya Rao is no other than the younger brother of the plaintiff. The defendants assert that they do not know as to who is choday Surya Rao at the time when they entered into Ex. B20 and it was the plaintiff with whom they entered into the said agreement. Further Choday Surya Rao who was examined as DW5, stated in his evidence that there is no such firm in the name and style of National Engineering Works Choday surya Rao and others at Kakinada and that he never received any amount from state Finance Corporation and that his elder brother Sanyasi Rao, i. e. , the plaintiff, never paid Rs. 50,000/- on behalf of the 1st defendant or his son Narahari, i. e. , the 2nd defendant or K. K. S. I, Artham (the firm of the defendants ). He further stated that he never managed the affairs of National engineering Works at Kakinada and it is only his brother Sanyasi Rao (plaintiff) who maintained the same. He further stated that he never entered into any agreement with Defendants 1 and 2 or with KKSI, artham for supply of machinery. ( 22 ) THUS, the evidence of Choday surya Rao (DW5) who is no other than the younger brother of the plaintiff, falsifies the whole theory of the plaintiff. ( 23 ) WHEN it is the specific case of the defendants from the beginning itself that, no firm like N. E. Works Contractors Choday surya Rao and others exists and it is a fictitious one created for the purpose of the suit claim, the plaintiff having filed the suit, ought to have chosen himself to enter into the witness box, so as to resolve the controversy involved in the Us. Apart from that, non-examination of the plaintiff himself as a witness, amounts to depriving the opportunity of the defendants to cross- examine him on the material aspects, so as to elicit the truth or otherwise of the controvery involved Though the plaintiff examined PWs. 1 and 2, they did not support the case of the plaintiff. Apart from that, the veracity of their evidence tilts in favour of the defendants. PW1 stated in his evidence at para 49 of his deposition that the contract is for Rs. 1,40,000/- for supply and transport of machinery and services. It was agreed that an amount of Rs. 1 and 2, they did not support the case of the plaintiff. Apart from that, the veracity of their evidence tilts in favour of the defendants. PW1 stated in his evidence at para 49 of his deposition that the contract is for Rs. 1,40,000/- for supply and transport of machinery and services. It was agreed that an amount of Rs. 90,000/- should be paid on the delivery of the machinery to be paid at the site of factory of sanvasi Rao. i. e. the plaintiff, at Kakinada. It was also agreed that a mortgage deed should be executed for Rs. 50,000/- in respect of the proposed factory as security. PW2 stated in his evidence that Ex. B20 bears his signature and it is an agreement wherein the plaintiff agreed to supply the machinery to the defendants and the agreement to purchase on credit, took place with the plaintiff and the defendants approached the plaintiff only for the supply of machinery and that Exs. B20, B21, B40 and B41 would show that supply of machinery is made by the plaintiff himself. Thus, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 clinches the issue that Ex. B20 agreement was entered by the plaintiff on his behalf with the defendants for the supply of machinery, equipment and material for the installation of Khandasari Sugar Factory. On a perusal of Ex. B20 agreement, it was typewritten showing the 1st party as "choday sanyasirao" i. e. , the plaintiff, proprietor of the National Engineering Works, Kakinada, east Godavari District, but the word "proprietor" appears to be struck off and the words "for and on behalf of Choday suryarao and others Contractors of were inserted in ink. The plaintiff was said to have signed on Ex. B20 for and on behalf of the said firm. But, no document evidencing to show that he is authorized to execute ex. B20 for and on behalf of National engineering Works Contractors Choday suryarao and others. It is not known under which authority he signed Ex. B20 on behalf of National Engineering Works Contracts choday Suryarao and others. Though PWs. 1 and 2 asserted that the firm National engineering Works was leased out to Choday surya Rao during the relevant period, no such lease deed is forthcoming. Ex. It is not known under which authority he signed Ex. B20 on behalf of National Engineering Works Contracts choday Suryarao and others. Though PWs. 1 and 2 asserted that the firm National engineering Works was leased out to Choday surya Rao during the relevant period, no such lease deed is forthcoming. Ex. B21 is the letter issued by the National Engineering works, Contractors, Choday Suryarao and others in favour of the 2nd defendant quoting the rates of the machinery for the proposed Sugar Factory and the same was signed by the plaintiff. In this connection, the said Suryarao who is no other than the younger brother of the plaintiff, as DW. 5 clearly stated that he never entered into any agreement with Defendants 1 and 2 or the proposed Sugar Factory, Artham for supply of machinery. In the present set of facts and circumstances of the case. We have no hesitation to hold that the firm national Engineering Works Contractors choday Suryarao and others was not in existence as a separate entity and it was for the name sake and it is the plaintiff who entered into Ex. B20 agreement on behalf of national Engineering works with the defendants for supply of machinery. ( 24 ) WITH regard to the discharge of the liability as pleaded by the defendants, it is crystal clear from Exs. B53 and Exs. B80 to b83 that the Corporation issued a cheque in favour of N. E. Works and thereby, the plaintiff encashed the same on behalf of the firm. ( 25 ) WE have perused the judgment of the Lower Court and the entire evidence, both oral and documentary. ( 26 ) FOR the reasons in the foregoing paragraphs and in the light of the evidence on either side. We have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and that the findings, which are cogent, clear and clinching, arrived at by the court below, do not warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, this appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. ( 27 ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is dismissed and the decree and judgment of the lower court passed in OS No. 49 of 1977 on 17. 7. 1987 by the learned Subordinate Judge, parvathipuram, are hereby confirmed. However, mere will be no order as to costs.