PERUMAL Vs. SAKTHIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Madurai North, at Dindigul, in A.S. No. 151 of 1983, dated 30.1.1984, confirming the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, in O.S. No. 204 of 1981 dated 27.4.1983.

(2.) THE suit was filed on a promissory note for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,521.80 with subsequent interest. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 17,220/- for his family expenses and business requirements from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note dated 15.9.1974 promising to repay with interest at 24 per cent per annum. THE Debt Relief Act was in force from 16.1.1975 to 14.7.1978 and after excluding the said period the plaintiff has time limit to file the suit on 15.3.1981 and hence the suit was filed in time. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was getting an annual income of Rs. 50,000/- and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Acts 31 of 1976 and Act 13 of 1980. In spite of repeated demands the defendant did not pay the due amount. Hence the suit.

(3.) WHILE reading the attested copy of the plaint given to the defendant, in paragraph 6, it is stated that the defendant was not an agriculturist in terms of Act 4 of 1938, a perusal of the original of the plaint shows that the last word in Tamil has been struck off in pen. There is no initial for scoring off the said expression. But whatever it might be, there is no dispute over the fact that the plaintiff has positively stated that the defendant was not entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Act and that he has also not pleaded that he was under the bona fide impression that the defendant was entitled to the benefits of the Act.