ADINARANAPPA Vs. MALLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 105 of 47-48 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, confirming those of the II Munsiff, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 131 of 1946-47 on the file of this Court.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit against the defendant-appellant for recovery of the Rs. 513 due on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 3rd September 1997 in favour of the deceased husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied on an endorsement on the promissory note dated 7th September 1940 for the payment made towards interest. The defendant is admittedly an agriculturist. The defendant is admittedly an agriculturist within the meaning of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act and he has pleaded discharge. This has not been believed by both the Courts and the suit is decreed as prayed for.

(3.) The only point that was argued in this appeal is that the courts below erred in the view that the suit is not barred by limitation by reason of the endorsement dated 7-9-1940 in asmuch as Sections 19 and 20, Limitation Act do not apply to the periods of limitation prescribed for agriculturists entitled to relief under the Mysore Agriculturists' Reliefs Act. It is conceded that the law as laid down in 22 Mysore Law Journal 27 is against this contention of the appellant. It is argued, however, that as the decision in Kishore Lal Stores v. Jagannath, A.I.R. (31) 1944 Bom. 89 : (L.L.R. (1944) Bom. 71) on which the decision in 22 Mys. L.J. 27 is based, has been overruled by a later Full Bench decision in Janardhan Eknath v. Ganesh Sadashiv, A.I.R. (32) 1945 Bom. 200: (I.L.R. (1945) Bom. 167 F.B.) the point raised needs some considered and it was urged that in case we are satisfied that the decision in 22 Mys. L.J. 27 is not correct, the pint might be referred to a Full Bench.