Acknowledgment of a time barred debt, even without receiving any consideration, is valid under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act.

Since the appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff are same in both the second appeals and they were directed as against the common Decree and Judgments of the Appellate Court, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this sole Judgment.

2. The litigation involved in this matter has witnessed zigzag trend decision, namely, in the Trial Court the appellant/defendant won the case and in the Appellate Court, the respondent/plaintiff has won the case.

3. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.478 of 2004, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam, for recovery of Rs.72,570/- based on the promissory note, dated 01.01.2001 (Ex.A2).

4. The very same respondent/plaintiff, as against the very same appellant/defendant, instituted another suit in O.S.No.366 of 2004, in the same Trial Court, for the recovery of Rs.89,933.35, based on the promissory note, dated 01.07.2000 (Ex.A1).

5. In both the suits, the appellant/defendant filed separate written statements, taking kindred stand that the promissory notes were not executed by him as pleaded in the plaint, but were obtained from him in blank forms in 1996 paying only a lesser amount and that were also paid, however, subsequently, the blank forms were made as suit promissory notes.

6. The Trial Court tried the suits together, appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that there was no passing of consideration for execution of Exs.A1 and A2, acknowledgment for Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes, should be for a subsisting debt, however, as the acknowledged debt is time barred and there is no consideration for the same, Exs.A1 and A2 are invalid and therefore Exs.A1 and A2 cannot be enforceable in a Court of law and thus dismissed the suits, by a common Judgment.

7. The unsuccessful respondent/plaintiff in both the suits appealed to the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam in A.S.Nos.209 of 2005 as against the Decree and Judgment made in O.S.No.366 of 2004 and A.S.No.210 of 2005, as against the Decree and Judgment made in O.S.No.478 of 2004.

8. The First Appellate Court brought Exs.A1 and A2 under the category of acknowledgment of time barred debt and referring to Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, even without passing of any consideration, such an acknowledgment is valid, thus reversed the finding of the Trial Court and allowed the appeals, by a common Judgment.

9. In such circumstances, the appellant/defendant preferred the second appeal in S.A.(MD) No.689 of 2009, as against the Decree and Judgment made in A.S.No.210 of 2005 and second appeal in S.A.(MD) No.1058 of 2009 as against Decree and Judgment made in A.S.No.209 of 2005.

10. At the time of admission of the second appeals, the then Honourable Brother formulated the following substantial questions of law:

In S.A.(MD) No.689 of 2009:

i. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in reversing the Judgment of the Trial Court, when the time barred debit is not acknowledged as per the provision under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act?

ii. Whether Exs.A1 and A2, the fresh promissory notes, can be treated as acknowledgment of pre-existing time barred debt in the absence of corroborated evidence through documents mentioned in Exs.A1 and A2, when admittedly there was no consideration was passed on the date of Exs.A1 and A2?

i. Whether Exs.A1 and A2 are the promissory notes or the acknowledgment of liability?

In S.A.(MD) No.1058 of 2009:

11. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that both the suits are barred by time. Under Exs.A1 and A2, the respondent/plaintiff instituted both the suits well after bar of limitation and there was no consideration for Exs.A1 and A2.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the suits are filed within the prescribed period of three years from the date of execution of Exs.A1 and A2. Section 18 nor Section 19 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the instant case. The proper applicable section of