MURUGAPPA CHETTI Vs. RAMANATHAN CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a claim by the plaintiff, a Nattukottai Chetcy money lender, against nine defendants on a promissory note. Defendant 1 is the maker of the promissory note. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are his sons. Defendant 5 is a brother and defendants 6 to 9 are defendant l's nephews. The issues as originally framed, despite the facts that in para 7 of the written statement of defendant 2 the plea of limitation is raised, do not raise the question of limitation at all. The learned Subordinate Judge as regards issue 2 and issue 4 amends them both. Issue 2 as it stood before his judgment was delivered is as follows: Did defendant and 5 become divided from the other members of defendant's family as alleged by defendant 2 and defendants 5 to 9?

(2.) That is amended by adding, Are defendants 6 to 9 divided from the other defendants"? No question arises on this point before us. The fourth issue stood as follows: Did he (i.e. defendant 1) borrow the amount for which he executed it for any necessity or benefit of that family or that business?

(3.) That was amended in the course of the judgment as follows: Did he execute the suit promissory note for an amount which he had borrowed for any necessity or benefit of that family or that business. Was the plaintiff's claim to recover it time barred when he gave or sent to plaintiff the letter of 10 November 1926, and was it not competent to him as manager of the defendant's family to give or send that letter to plaintiff for a barred debt?