K SUBRAMANIAM NAIDU Vs. T N RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendant in both the courts below is the appellant.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of R s. 16, 320 towards principal and interest. THE defendant borrowed a sum of R s. 18, 000 from the plaintiff on 12. 10. 86 and executed the suit promissory note ex. A1. Only a sum of Rs 11, 400 was paid and the balance remains due and payable. THE notice was also issued under Ex. A2 dated 9. 10. 89, calling upon the defendant to make the payment and the amount was not paid. THE defendant is employed as a Sub-Registrar at Hosur , drawing more than Rs. 3, 000 per month and he also owns immovable properties and, as such, not entitled to get benefit under any of the Debt Relief Act.

(3.) POINTS: The plaintiff has come forward with a specific case that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 18, 000 on 12. 10. 86 and executed the suit document Ex. A1. Although in the written statement the defendant took a plea that the suit document was not executed by him. Subsequently he admitted his signature in Ex. A1. When once the signature is admitted, the burden is upon the defendant to show that it is not supported by consideration. The notice was issued under Ex. A2 i. e. on 9. 10. 89 and no acknowledgment has been filed in the case. There is no record to show that the notice of demand was served on the defendant. Now the only plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit claim is barred by time and, as such, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the suit document is supported by consideration or not. Ex. A1 was executed on 12. 10. 86 and the suit was filed on 15. 10. 89. Prima facie it is clear that the suit was filed after a period of three years. There is a plea in the plaint that a sum of Rs. 11, 400 has been paid towards the suit claim and under the circumstance , the suit is well within time. The burden is on the plaintiff to show that towards the suit claim only, the sum of Rs. 11, 400 was paid and it would save the limitation.