LAKSHMANA PERUMAL NAICKER Vs. NARAYANASWAMI NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question arises in this civil revision petition. The facts are as follows: The petitioner as plaintiff preferred S.CS.No.23 of 1980 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.463.25. The defendant (respondent-herein), admittedly, had borrowed a sum of Rs.600 from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in his favour on 27th January, 1975, agreeing to pay the principal together with interest at 12% p.a. In view of the publication of Ordinance 5 of 1978, S.C.S.No.154 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.392.95, that is, half towards principal and interest, and by passing the receipt Exhibit B-l the claim was settled on 14th November, 1978 and the claim was satisfied. Thereafter, Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 came into force. As per the provisions of the said Act, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount as recited in the promissory note. Giving credit to the amount received under Ex.B-1, for the remaining amount, namely, Rs.463.25 the suit S.C.S.No.23 of 1980 came to be filed. In defence it was contended that the suit was not maintainable in law, in so far as Exhibit B-l in full and final settlement of the claim due under the promissory note had been passed and since the claim was made in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, a further suit will not lie merely because the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 contains different provisions.

(2.) THE learned District Munsif who tried the suit was of the view . that though as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, a creditor was entitled to claim only half of the amount and that right could be enforced only in respect of half of the amount of the debt payable by the debtor, inasmuch as Ex.B-1 had been passed on 14th November, 1948 the present suit would not lie. This is because section 33(2) Of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 states that the earlier proceedings would not in any way be invalidated. What was claimed in S.C.S.No.154 of 1978 having been paid fully and full satisfaction having been rendered, the present suit would not lie. It is to revise this order the plaintiff has come forward with this revision.