VENGOJAMMAL Vs. N V RENGASAMY NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is the appellant. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 1541 of 79 on the file of District Munsif, Vellore, for recovery of amount due on a promissory note, it is contended in the plaint that the defendant executed a suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff on 31-10-74 for a sum of Rs. 4,500/- on receipt of proper and valid consideration promising to repay the same with interest at 15 per cent. The defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1600/- on 17-10-1976 through her daughter and he endorsed on the pronote. Since the balance of the amount was not paid in spite of repeated demands, the plaintiffs had laid the present suit for recovery of the same.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the defendant, it is contended that the defendant has filed suit for partition for her husband's share in O.S. 47 of 69 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore and she obtained a decree in her favour. Her son-in-law Govindasamy Naidu gave the funds for the conduct of the case for the dues to the son-in-law and the pronote was executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also supporting the defendant in the said partition suit. Hence the plaintiff is only a namelender and he did not pay any amount to the defendant. Moreover, the defendant is a small farmer entitled to the benefits of the Act 31 of 76. The suit is barred by limitation. IN the additional written statement filed by the defendant, it is contended that she is entitled to fee benefits of Act 13 of 1980, hence prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) A reading of the judgment of the trial court shows that there is no much controversy on the execution and passing of consideration in the pronote. However, relying upon Ex. B-1 a certificate issued by Tahsildar, who was examined as D.W. 1, the learned District Munsif, Vellore, by judgment and decree dated 3-11-80, dismissed the suit as abated.