The burden of proof shifts to the defendant to establish lack of consideration when the execution of promissory notes is admitted. The acknowledgment of debt and its impact on the limitation period are crucial in determining the maintainability of the suit.

1. Suit is for recovery of Rs.70,00,821 with interest at 36%.

2. Suit is on pro-notes. The brief averments of the plaint is as follows:

3. One M/s Tatia Skyline and Health Farms Limited, a Company in which, the defendant was a Chairman, entered into a deed of licence dated 29.1.1993 with plaintiff's mother Mrs.Valiammal. This agreement relates to commercially exploiting the property of Mrs.Valiammal by putting up construction. After the execution of the said agreement, the defendant approached the plaintiff for funds and promised to return the same with 36% interest.

4. The plaintiff arranged a sum of Rs.22,50,000/-from 23 various persons, hailing from his native place, Chettinadu and gave it to the defendant. The defendant acknowledged the receipt of said sum and executed 23 separate promissory notices on 25.12.1996 in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendant did not repay as promised.

5. On warning him, initiation of proceedings for recovery of same, the defendant assured payment and paid a token sum of Rs.1000/-on each of the promissory notes and had acknowledged the debt by making endorsement on the promissory note on 25.12.1999.

6. The defendant failed to fulfil that promise also. The plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice and on failure, the suit is filed for the principal and also interest for a total sum of Rs.70,00,821/- with future interest.

7. The defendant entered appearance through counsel and filed written statement interalia stating as follows:

(a) The agreement of licence dated 29.1.1993 for exploiting the property of Mrs.Valiammal, is admitted. However, it was denied that the plaintiff had anything to do with the agreement. When Mrs.Valiammal had given possession of the property, she wanted the defendant to execute promissory notes as security and therefore, the defendant executed blank promissory notes as security. The defendant has not received any consideration.

(b) On receipt of the notice, the defendant called upon the plaintiff to produce the list of the persons from whom the plaintiff collected Rs.22,50,000/-, account statement, income tax returns, the true copy of the promissory note and the statement of account for the acknowledgement of Rs.1000/- on each of the promissory notes.

(c) Before completion of the construction, Mrs.Valliammal wanted the defendant to furnish security and therefore, the said Valliammal and the defendant assessed the value of the property at RS.22,50,000/- and she asked the defendant to execute 23 promissory notes.

(d) When the construction was not completed and the promissory notes were to be time barred, Mrs.Valiammal had requested the defendant to make an endorsement on the rear side of the promissory notes and the same was done by the defendant only with the sole intention of revalidating the security given to Mrs.Vallammal.

(e) On completion of the construction, amounts were paid to Valiammal and sale deeds were also executed, however, she had not returned the promissory notes and the plaintiff seemed to have obtained the same from his mother illegally to enrich himself. The suit is also barred by limitation.

8. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the suit pronotes were given as blank pronotes by the defendant as security?

2. Whether the suit pronotes are not supported by consideration?

3. Whether the alleged acknowledgement of debt by making the endorsements on the suit pronotes is legally valid and binding on the defendants?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal amount covered by the pronotes with interest as claimed in the plaint?

5. To what other relief the plaintiff will be entitled?

9. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendant would submit that the suit is barred by limitation as the endorsement is not within the time limit. Therefore, the following additional issue viz.,

Whether the suit is barred by limitation is also framed.

10. To prove the cas