ADHRUMANKUTTY Vs. CHOVVARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff, whose suit instituted on December 29, 1959, to enforce a registered promissory note dated June 3, 1952, has been dismissed by the court below as barred by limitation. He had described the defendant as an agriculturist and claimed exclusion of the time during which institution of suits for recovery of debts against agriculturists had been barred under the Madras Ordinance V of 1953, Madras Act V of 1954, Madras Act I of 1955 and Kerala Act XXXI of 1958. Though the defendant did not particularly deny to be an agriculturist, he challenged the plaintiff's claim for extension of the time to sue. The Munsiff found "no evidence that the defendant is in possession of agricultural property" and therefore held the Act XXXI of 1958 inapplicable and the suit barred by limitation. Hence this motion for a revision of the decision under S.22 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957.

(2.) It is contended that the defendant is a lessee of some arable land and therefore an agriculturist and that since the express averment to that effect in the plaint has not been specifically denied by him he must be presumed to be an agriculturist.

(3.) Counsel relied on Kutty Sankaran Nair v. Sankaran ( 1959 KLT 7 ) to contend that the plaintiff is entitled to exclude two years under the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance V of 1953 and the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act V of 1954 in computing the period of limitation. It was observed therein :