BICHAL NAIDU Vs. S.K. MUTHURAMALINGAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision proceeding involves a question of some interest, namely, the extent to which Section 4(1) of Madras Act I of 1955 would be operative to split up a debt owed by an agriculturist into the different parts or instalments contemplated by the section, each forming a distinct cause of action both with regard to the right to sue upon the debt, and with regard to limitation; The revision petitioner before us is the second defendant in a suit upon a negotiable instrument, under the following circumstances.

(2.) THE case of plaintiff (respondent) was that the first defendant and his undivided son, the second defendant (revision petitioner), conducted a Mandi business, in respect of which there were dealings with the plaintiff from prior to 1st October, 1953. On 24th March, 1954, the accounts were settled as between the parties, and a balance of Rs. 681 -4 -11 was due which the revision petitioner acknowledged, and in respect of which he executed a promissory note in the ledger of the plaintiff. The plaint was originally presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul but it was returned by that Court on the ground that the first instalment due under Act I of 1955, the fact not being in dispute that the defendants were agriculturists entitled to the benefit of that Act was clearly barred by limitation. The plaintiff thereupon confined his claim to Rs. 406 -03, being the amount due for the subsequent three instalments, according to his memorandum of calculation. As the claim in respect of this amount was cognizable by the Court of the District Munsif, the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court, and that was how the suit came to be filed in the Court of the learned District Munsif of Dindigul. We are not now concerned with several of the matters in controversy between the parties,, including an alleged discharge pleaded by the defendants, and the binding nature of the acknowledgment dated 24th March, 1954, Exhibit A -4. We are mainly concerned with the question of limitation as applicable to the facts established by the record.

(3.) IT is well known that the result of the operation of Section 3 of Madras Act V of 1954, Section 3 of Act I of 1955 and Section 5 of the former Act and Section 8 of the latter Act, is that a total period of one year, six months and 26 days has to be excluded for the computation of limitation., with regard to the debt due from an agriculturist to which these enactments apply. It is sufficient to refer to the following decisions of this Court, namely, Narayana Moopanar v. Viswesa Nadar (1958) 71 L.W. 531 and Savada Gounder v. Veerappa Gounder (1959) 1 M.L.J. 312 : I.L.R.(1959) Mad. 711 : 72 L.W. 140. It is again indisputable, that where a Provincial Act has been validly passed, and it makes it obligatory upon Courts to exclude a particular period when computing the period of limitation, the Courts should exclude that period, as the Limitation Act is not an exclusive corpus of law upon the subject, and special enactments may very well modify that law. Reference may also be made here to N. Sambayya v. N. Pedda Subbayya (1937) 3 M.L.J. 703, wherein a Bench of this Court decided that, with reference to insolvency proceedings, a creditor could deduct only the period from the date of adjudication to the date of annulment, as the operation of the statute of limitation could be regarded as suspended only for that period. In the present case, though the suit is truly upon the negotiable instrument which was executed on 24th March, 1954, the learned District Munsif has given a finding that the plaintiff was entitled to add one year, six months and 26 days to the three years which he would normally have from 24th March, 1954, for the Computation of limitation. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that this view is quite untenable, and cannot be recognised as valid even prima facie. If that argument is to be accepted the question then is whether the suit has to be dismissed in its entirety as time -barred, or whether the suit claim could be upheld in respect of the three instalments excluding the first instalment for which it was restricted, after the return of the plaint by the Sub -Court.