PERIASWAMI Vs. V P ARUNACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in A.S.No.8 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Karur, in which the learned Subordinate Judge had allowed the appeal, reversing the judgment passed in O.S.No.2443 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif, Karur.

(2.) SHORT facts are:

(3.) REGARDING partial failure of consideration and entitlement of the defendant to benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 31 of 1976, the findings of the fact at the court below are concurrent against the defendant. REGARDING the maintainability of the suit, the fact remains that the plaintiff had filed the suit only for half of the principal and interest amount in O.S.No.995 of 1978 and had obtained a decree, since because, as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, he can claim only that much. Later, that Act was repealed and Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 came into force, which enables such creditors<AT> C.R.P.No.1518 of 1988</AT> to make a claim for the remaining half of the princi pal amount and interest amount. While so, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable, This very question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Vythilingam Chettiar v. Rangaswami Padayachi, (1988)2 L.W. 330, in which the Bench of this Court had held that such a suit filed for the remaining half of the principal and interest amount is maintainable, in view of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979. That ruling squarely applies to this case. Consequently, the finding of the lower appellate court that the suit was not maintainable has to be set aside.