LAKSHMINARAYAN REDDIAR Vs. T K S BALARAMA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil revision ,petitions have been preferred by the defendant in 0. S. Nos. 2627 and 2626 of ,!1981 respectively, District Munsif's court, Yriddhachalam. Those suits were instituted by the respondent herein for the recovery !of certain amounts from the petitioner on ,the basis of promissory notes dt. 24-3-197.1, 19-9-1974 and 24-11-1974. The promissory notes dated 24-3-1971 formed the subject ,matter of 0. S. 2627 of 1981 while 0 . S. 2626 of 1981 related to the other two promissory notes dt.,19-9-1974, and 24-111974. In so far as the promissory note dt. 24-3-1971 is concerned, the respondent 'earlier filed 0. S. 1910 of 1978 for. the ,recovery of one half of the principal amount as well as one half of the interest in ,accordance with the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978. In the course of that suit, ,the respondent slated that as the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Ordinance of 1978 and also T. N. Act 17 of 1976 and there was a statutory discharge of and interdict against the recovery of 'anything more than one half of the principal and one half of the interest, the ,balance alone statutorily due was claimed. :That claim was also further stated to be in ,time on account of the endorsement made on the promissory note on 21-8-1973 and 17-9-1974, and also on account of the bar against the institution of suits against agriculturists having been in force 'between 15-1-1975 and 15-7-1978 and the benefits of Tamil Nadu Ordinance of 1978 and T. N. Act 77 of 1976 being available to the petitioner. On 8-3-1979, the petitioner made an endorsement on the plaint in 0. S. 1910 of 1978 submit" to a, decree as prayed for, but praying for Six months time .

(2.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suits instituted by the respondent herein in 0. S. 2627 and 2626 of 1981, for the recovery of further amounts under the' promissory notes, after the earlier institution of suits thereon in 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978 and the obtaining of decrees therein in accordance with T. N. Act 40 of 1978, were not maintainable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that owing to the operation of the provisions of Tamil Nadu,' Ordinance V of 1978 and later Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, the respondent was prevented by statute from recovering the entire amount due under the promissory notes, but was permitted to recover only one half of the principal and one half of the interest as was done in 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978, and when the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 enabled the respondent to further recover amounts in accordance with the provisions of that Act, the respondent had taken. steps for such recovery and inasmuch as the respondent had not in any manner waived his right to recover the amounts from the petitioner, there could be no bar for the institution of a suit to recover such further amounts as could be recovered under the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979.

(3.) In order to appreciate this contention, it would be necessary at this stage to refer to the salient provisions of T. N. Acts 40 of 1978 and 40 of 1979. T. N. Act 40 of 1978 repealed Tamil Nadu Ordinance V of 1978 and was intended to afford relief to the debtors by way of liquidation of debts and scaling down of debts as well. Under S. 6(l) of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, all debts payable by any debtor on 14-7-1978 were to be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of that Act. A proviso was incorporated S. 6(l) to the effect that debts already scaled down under Ss. 8, 9-A, 10 11 and 12 of T. N. Act 4 of 1938 or Ss. 7, 8, 9, 10 and I I of T. N. Act 38 of 1972, were not to be scaled down again under the provisions of Chap. 11 of T. N. Act 40 of 1978. S. 6(2) of the Act laid an embargo upon the recovery of amounts in excess of the scaled down amount from a debtor or from out of his property. In other words, S. 6(2) of T. N. Act 40 of 1 978, confined and restricted the recoverability of a debt due from a debtoror from out of his property to that amount, which was the scaled down amount under Chapter 11. S. 7 of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 provided for scaling down -of the debt which had been on each occasion advanced or incurred before 14-7-1978,and payable by the debtor on that date.S. 7(l)(a) wholly discharged the whole of the principal amount together with interest, where on each occasion the principal amount advanced or incurred did not exceed Rs. 500.