AGASTHEESWARASWAMI DEVASTHANAM TMIPOONDI MELASETHI Vs. RAJAGOPAL KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question of law arises for consideration in this case. It depends on the interpretation of S. 34 of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979.

(2.) THE relevant facts are these: THE defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,275/- on 16-8-1964 under Ex. A.1. Three endorsements were made on Ex. A.1 evidencing payments of Rs. 20/- on 4-8-1967/- Rs. 1,017 on 18-10-1969 and Rs. 5/- on 9-10-1972. THE endorsements are respectively marked as Exs. A.2, A.3 and A.4. THE suit was filed on 30-11-1979. THE defendant raised a plea of limitation and also contended that a sum of Rs. 405/- owed by the plaintiff should be deducted from the amount which may be found due to the plaintiff. Both the Courts have accepted the plea of limitation and dismissed the suit.

(3.) THE later part of the section expressly states that the period of exclusion would apply only to suits which were barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act of 1978. In this case, the amount due under the promissory note was much more than Rs. 500/- and the amounts paid by the debtor did not exceed the amount which would have been due to the creditor on scaling down of the debt under S. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. THErefore, the plaintiff could have filed a suit for recovery of the amount due to him after applying the provisions of scaling down under S. 7 of Act 40 of 1978.