EKANATHASAMIDURAI Vs. PERIYASAMIDURAI PATCHALA NAINAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Panruti, dated 10.01.2007, made in A.S.No.10 of 2006, reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Panruti, made in O.S.No.421 of 1995, dated 27.01.2006.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal are referred to as they have been arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.421 of 1995.

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the first defendant, the claims made by the plaintiffs have been denied. It has been stated that the plaintiffs are not agriculturists as contemplated by Acts 40 of 1979, 8 of 1973 and 4 of 1938. The plaintiffs are hailing from a royal family and they are owning large extent of lands. They are also income tax assessees and therefore, they are not entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Acts. Since the plaintiffs have accepted to pay the amount as fixed by this Court the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs ought to have deposited the amount at the time of the filing of the suit. Further, the plaintiffs are not entitled to extension of limitation period as claimed by them, since they are not agriculturists as contemplated by law. The plaintiffs are liable to pay Court fee for the entire mortgage amount. Since the Court fees had been paid only for 1/4th the amount, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Since, there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit they are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for by them.