N.R. NARAYANASWAMY IYER Vs. RAMIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT was only on the ground of limitation that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant to recover the money due under the promissory note was dismissed. It is the correctness of that conclusion that is the subject -matter of this application for revision.

(2.) IT is common ground that unless the provisions of Madras Act I of 1955 could apply, the plaintiff's claim would be beyond the period of limitation. The promissory note was executed on 10th February, 1953, and the suit was filed on 4th September, 1957. The plaintiff could claim the benefit of the period excluded under Section 5 of Act V of 1954. But since the suit was filed only on 4th September, 1957, unless the time which can be excluded under Act I of 1955 is also excluded, the claim would be out of time. In deciding whether the defendant is an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2 of Act I of 1955, what I have to consider is really whether the defendant comes within the scope of the exclusion in Section 2(a)(i). The defendant's specific case was that the joint family of which he and his brother were members paid land revenue beyond the limit prescribed by Section 2(a)(i), that is Rs. 150. Explanation 1 of Section 2 runs: