T A SUBRAMANIYA CHETTIAR Vs. BABI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the plaintiff whose suit on a promissory note has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the defendants were entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. On the question whether the promissory note was supported by consideration, the trial Court held in favour of the plaintiff. Because of the finding that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980, the suit has been dismissed.

(2.) THE question whether the legal representatives of a debtor are entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Acts was referred to a Full Bench and this revision was also placed before the Full Bench. THE Full Bench answered the question in the affirmative 1 and sent back the matters to be decided 0. 1 merits by the concerned Judges. Thus, this revision petition has come up before me for decision on merits.

(3.) D.W. 1 states that she realised only ten bags of groundunt in 1979 in all and each bag was sold at the rate of Rs. 80 per bag. Thus, the total income could only be Rs. 800 in 1979 according to her evidence. But in the very next sentence, she states that the total income was Rs. 4,200 and the expenditure was Rs. 500. If that is so, there is no whisper about the other sources of income for the defendants. If her total income was Rs. 4,200, as stated by her, it is quite obvious that she had other sources of income. But, she has not given any details thereof.