SEENIAMMAL ALIAS INDIRANI Vs. PIRAMASANKARI ALIAS KAMALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S. 76 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tuticorin is the applicant herein. He filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6000/- with interest on the basis of a promissory note executed by one Murugesan Pillai. Respondents are wife and children of the said Murugesan Pillai who died prior to filing the suit. Respondents raised two defences in the suit while filing written statement. One is that the deceased Murugesan Pillai did not execute the suit promissory note and the other is that they are entitled for the benefit of Act 13/80, the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act. The trial Court decreed the suit finding that the said Murugesan Pillai had executed the suit promissory note and the respondents herein are liable to discharge the said debt. The trial Court further negatived the claim of the respondents for the benefit of Debt Relief Act. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein preferred an appeal in A.S. 8 of 1984 on the file of the District Court, Tiurunelveli. The learned District Judge by his judgment and decree dated 5.2.1985 allowed the appeal finding that the respondents are entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Act. The learned District Judge further found that the defence taken by the respondent that Murugesan Pillai did not execute the suit promissory note cannot be believed and categorically found that the suit promissory note was executed by him. As the learned District Judge found that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Act, he has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal against the decree of the lower appellate Court.

(3.) THE only question being whether the respondents are entitled for the benefit of Debt Relief Act or not which has been answered by the Full Bench negativing the claim of the j respondents, there is no need to discuss the facts elaborately in this Second Appeal. Hence, following the decision of the Full Bench given in the reference in the above Second Appeal, this Second Appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.