C ESSAK Vs. SUSAI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEC. 5 of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists' temporary Relief Act, XV of 1p76 and SEC. 6 of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Persons' temporary Relief Act, XVI of 1976, are the provisions relating to exclusion of time for purposes of limitation, wherein good faith is pleaded by the creditor in instituting suits belatedly, that is, beyond the period of limitation. The suit had been laid before the lower Court on foot of two promissory notes, marked as Exs. A4 and A5 and the suit had been decreed, believing the evidence of the plaintiff who had gone into the box as P. W. 1. The only witness on behalf of the defendant is none other than the defendant himself, who was also the scribe of both the promissory notes on which the suit had been laid.

(2.) THE three main issues that were framed for consideration by the lower Court are: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any amount as prayed for as per her accounts" 2. Whether the plaint promissory notes are not supported by consideration" and 3. Whether the suit is in time" This Court has gone through the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, on the same having been taken through by Mr. V. Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant. THE defence that had been put forward in the written statement filed by the defendant-appellant was as follows: He is a small trader in coconuts and the plaintiff is not a retail dealer in coconuts. THE defendant had at no time any transaction with the plaintiff. THE diary and the entries made therein were not written by the defendant, and they are fabricated for purposes of the suit claim, which is false. THE plaintiff never advanced any amount to the defendant as alleged in the plaint, and she had no means to advance such huge amounts. On the other hand, the defendant, being in affluent circumstances, had no necessity to borrow from the plaintiff. THE suit promissory notes are also supported by consideration. In 1972 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000 and another of Rs. 2,000 from the plaintiff's husband. On the date of the promissory notes, the plaintiff and her husband-approached the defendant and wanted him to execute promissory notes for double the amounts actually borrowed by him, and the defendant was compelled to execute the promissory notes for Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 4,000. respectively at the instance of the plaintiff's husband. THE promissory notes being not supported by consideration, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief claimed. Further, the suit is also barred by limitation.