( 1. ) THE plaintiff in all the suits is the appellant.

( 2. ) THE plaintiff in these appeals filed suit on the basis of promissory notes executed by the defendants and the trial Court decreed the suits and the Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeals. Hence, these appeals are filed by the plaintiffs.

The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants executed suit promissory notes after receiving consideration stated therein and thereafter, they made one payment and failed to pay the amount due on the promissory notes despite demands and hence, the suits were filed for recovery of the amount.

( 3. ) THE defence of all the defendants was that no consideration was passed under the suit promissory notes and there was a dispute in the family of the defendants and one of the brothers of the defendants by name Palanivel, who is also a respondent, in some of the appeals, borrowed money and for the purpose of defeating the rights of Palanivel, as per the advise given by Muthu Gounder, the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.141 of 1983 and 29 of 1983, these promissory notes were created as if the other defendants borrowed money from the plaintiffs and no consideration was passed and to defeat the rights of Palanivel, the defendants put their signatures in blank promissory notes and also affixed thumb impression in the front and back so as to make it appear that there was an endorsement and after the disputes between the family members of the defendants was over, the respondents did not get back the promissory notes from Muthu Gounder and taking advantage of the blank promissory notes, the said Muthu Gounder has filed these suits through his son, daughter and other relatives as if the respondents/defendants executed promissory notes in their favour for consideration stated therein and therefore, they are not liable to make any payment.

( 4. ) AT the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:- 01.) Whether the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled to the benefits under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the case of the defendants is that they had signed and affixed their LTI on inchoate instrument? 02.) Whether the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act will enure to the benefit of the plaintiffs/appellants or not inasmuch as the defendants have miserably failed to prove that the suit pro-note is a forged one?

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.K.Vasu Venkat, that the Lower Appellate Court without appreciating the provisions of section 20 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, reversed the findings of the trial Court on surmises and conjectures and without appreciating the fact that the execution of promissory notes were admitted by the respondents.

( 5. ) HE further submitted that the case of the appellants was that the respondents received the money and executed promissory notes in their favour. The defence was the defendants signed in the blank promissory notes for the reasons stated in the written statement and for the purpose of settling disputes, at the instance of Muthu Gounder and Muthu Gounder retained the promissory notes even after the dispute between the family members of the defendants was over and created the promissory notes by filling the blanks and filed the suits through his wife, daughter, sister, son and by himself. HE, therefore, submitted that once the defendants admitted their signatures in the promissory notes, it amounts to execution and once execution is admitted the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, will have to be drawn and therefore, the promissory notes must have been executed for consideration stated therein and in the absence of any evidence to disprove the same, the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree. HE further submitted that it is the specific case of the plaintiffs/appellants that the promissory notes were executed