GANAPATHIA PILLAI Vs. EKAMBARA MOOPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of limitation is involved in these two civil revision petitions.

(2.) The petitioner as plaintiff instituted two small cause suits against the two respondents who had executed promissory notes to him, one on 8th July 1952, and the other on 9th August 1952. Both the suits were filed on 4th June 1957 and in order to escape the bar of limitation reliance was placed upon the provisions of Madras Act V of 1954 and Act I of 1955. The combined effect of these two Acts was to extend the period of limitation for a period of one year, one month and 26 days. The suits were not laid even within the extended period. The District Munsif dismissed both the suits on the ground of limitation.

(3.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under S. 4 of the Act I of 1955, the debt became payable in instalments and consequently the Article of the Limitation Act applicable to this case would be Art. 74 and not Art. 73, S. 4(1) of Act I of 1955 enacts. "Notwithstanding any law, custom, contract or decree of court to the contrary, an agriculturist shall be entitled to pay within four months of the commencement of this Act, the interest due on any debt due by him up to the commencement of this Act and one eighth of the principal outstanding or one-fourth of the total amount outstanding whichever is less, and the balance of the debt in three equal annual instalments on or before the 1st July of each of the succeeding years with the interest due on such instalments upto that date." The explanation and the rest of the section may be omitted as not necessary for any present purpose. The Act came into force on the 1st March 1955. The argument is that by reason of S. 4(1) of the Act, every debt payable by an agriculturist on demand under a promissory note became a debt payable by instalments and therefore Art. 74 would apply.