Sri Varalakshmi Finance Syndicate, Krishnagiri, by Managing Partner P.C. Pandurangan vs R. Govindarajulu and Alamelu Ammal

Somasundaram, J.—The plaintiff in O.S. No. 86 of 1981 on the file of the Sub-Court, Krishnagiri is the appellant in this second appeal. The

defendants 1 and 3 in the said suit are the respondents in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the

nomenclature given to them in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,250 due on a promissory note dated 7-8-1974

executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 11,500 with interest at 9% per annum. The case of the plaintiff is that on 7-8-

1974 the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 11,500 from the plaintiff-firm for purchasing lorry tyres and spare parts agreeing to repay the same

with interest at 12% per annum and in spite of repeated demands and notices the defendants failed to pay any amount due under the promissory

note dated 7-8-1974. The further case of the plaintiff is that the suit is not barred by limitation, because, the plaintiff, in good faith, believed that it

was prevented from filing the suit during the period when the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 were in force.

The defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit promissory note is not a true and genuine document and it had been fabricated for the

purpose of the suit. The defendants further contended that the suit is barred by limitation.

The trial court, on the basis of evidence on record both oral and documentary, found that the suit promissory note marked Ex.A1 is true and

valid. The trial court found that the suit is barred by limitation and consequently dismissed the suit. As against the judgment of the trial court the

plaintiff filed an appeal, A.S. No. 47 of 1984 on the file of the District Court Dharmapuri. The appellate court also confirmed the finding of the trial

court that the suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved by the judgments of the courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that the defendants owned agricultural lands; they are entitled to the benefits

of the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 and the plaintiff was prevented from filing the suit for the recovery of the amount due under;

the suit promissory note during the period when the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 were in force. The learned counsel contended

that in any event the plaintiff believed in good faith that the defendants are entitled to the benefits of the Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 and that

the plaintiff is prevented from filing the suit by the provisions contained in the Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled

to exclude the moratorium period of 3 years and 6 months in calculating the period of limitation for the purpose of filing the suit on the basis of

Ex.A1. Learned counsel further contended that the moratorium period under the Tamil Nadu Act 15 of 1976 came to an end on 15-7-1978 and,

therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the moratorium period viz., from 16-1-1975 to 15-7-1978 (both days inclusive); if both these days viz.,

16-1-1975 and 15-7-1978 are included, the total moratorium period will come to 3 years and 6 months ; the normal period of limitation for filing a

suit on the suit promissory note is 3 years from 7-8-1974; if the moratorium period of 3 years and 6 months is added to the normal period of

limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, the plaintiff can file the suit on the basis of Ex.A1 within a period of 6 years and 6 months and the

last date for filing the suit is 7-2-1981 and, therefore, the suit filed on 7-2-1981 in this case is within time. On the other hand, Mr. R.S.

Venkatachari, learned counsel for the defendants would contend that the averments in the plaint and in the reply statement filed by the plaintiff

would go to show that the plaintiff''s case, that it believed in good faith that it is prevented from filing the suit within the period of limitation due to

the prevalence of the Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976, cannot be true. Learned counsel for the defendants would further contend that in any event

the plaintiff can exclude the moratorium period of 3 years, 5 months and 29 days in calculating the period of limitation for filing the suit on the basis

of Ex.A1 ; and if so done, the suit ought to have been filed on 6-2-1981: but, actually in this case the suit was filed on 7-2-1981 and, therefore, the

suit is barred by limitation.

The following two questions arise for consideration in this second appeal :

(1) Whether the plaintiff believed in good faith that he was prevented from filing the suit for recovery of amount due under Ex.A1 during the

moratorium period when the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 were in force ?

(2) On what date the moratorium imposed by the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 came to an end whether on 14-7-1978 as held by

the lower appellate court or on 15-7-1978 as contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff ?

Let me first examine the question No. 1. The suit promissory note is dated 7-8-1974 and the last date for filing the suit as per the provisions of

the Limitation Act is 7-8-1977. In para 4(b) of the plaint the plaintiff has averred that by reason of the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Acts

10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 it was prevented from filing the suit for recovery of the money due under Ex.A1, during the period from 15-1-1975 to

15-7-1978. In para 4 of the additional written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 the defendants have specifically stated that they are

entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976 as they are having less than one unit of land. This statement of defendants in para 4 of the

written statement shows that the defendants are owning agricultural land and that they are agriculturist. The Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of

1976 are applicable only to agriculturists. In view of the admission of the defendants in para 4 of the additional written statement it can be safely

held that the plaintiff believed in good faith that it was prevented from filing the suit for recovery of the amount due under Ex.A1 by reason of

certain provisions in the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976. Therefore, the lower appellate court on facts of this case has correctly held

that the plaintiff believed in good faith that it was prevented from filing the suit on the basis of the suit promissory note during the moratorium period

imposed by the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976.

Now let me examine the second question viz., on what date the moratorium imposed by the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 came

to an end. The Tamil Nadu Ordinance 1 of 1975, which has subsequently been replaced by the Tamil Nadu. Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary

Relief) Act 10 of 1975 bars the institution of suit against an agriculturist debtor for a period of one year from the date of promulgation of the

Ordinance i.e., from 16-1-1975 to 15-1-1976. On 15-1-1976 the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 15 of 1976 came

into force and S. 3 of the said Act bars the institution of any suit for recovery of any debt from an agriculturist for a period of one year from the

date of commencement of the Act 15 of 1976. The Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act of 1977 amended the aforesaid period of

one year as one year and 6 months. The Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Second Amendment) Act of 1977 further amended the above period of 1

year and 6 months as 2 years. The Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act II of 1978 further amended the aforesaid period of 2 years as

2 years and 6 months. Though it appears on the face of it that the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 as amended by the Tamil Nadu

Debt Relief Laws (I Amendment) Act of 1977, the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (II Amendment) Act of 1977 and the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief

Laws (Amendment) Act II of 1978 bar the institution of any suit for recovery of any money due from an agriculturist for a period of three years

and 6 months a close scrutiny of the provisions of the Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 will show that the above Acts were in force only for a

period of 3 years 5 months and 29 days. S.1(3) of the Act 10 of 1975 says that the said Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 16th

January, 1975. The Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1975 was in force for a period of 1 year from 16-1-1975 to 15-1-1976. It has to be remembered that

even on 15-1-1976 the Tamil Nadu Act 15 of 1976 came into force as per S. 1(3) of the Act 15 of 1976. In other words, on 15-1-1976 both the

Acts viz., Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 were in force. If the Act 15 of 1976 had come into force on 16-1-1976, we can say that the above

mentioned two Acts were in force for a period of 3 years and 6 months. In as much as the Tamil Nadu Act 15 of 1976 came into force even on

15-1-1975, it has to be held that the total period during which the above mentioned two Acts were in force and the total period of moratorium

imposed by the said Acts is only 3 years 5 months and 29 days. From this it follows that by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of

1976 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment; Act, 1977, the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (2nd Amendment) Act, 1977

and the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act II of 1978, no suit could be filed against an agriculturist debtor for a period of 3 years 5

months and 29 days i.e., from 16-1-1975 to 14-7-1978. Mr. R. Subramanian relied on the decision in K.L. Kuttayan Chettiar & others v. K.V.R.

Surendranathachari & others 95 L.W. 492=1982 II M.L.J. 443 in support of his contention that the moratorium period imposed by the Tamil

Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 came to an end only on 15-7-1978. No doubt, in para 19 of the above judgment, the Division Bench has

observed as follows:

The moratorium period under Act 15 of 1976 came to an end on 15th July, 1978.

The above decision was rendered by the Division Bench on an order of reference for an authoritative pronouncement on the question whether a

suit instituted during the period of moratorium, during which period, the institutions of the suits are prohibited by the provisions of the Act 15 of

1976 is to be dismissed as not maintainable or stayed till the expiry of the period during which moratorium subsists. In the above decision the

Division Bench of this Court was not called upon to decide the question on what date the moratorium period under the Act 15 of 1976 came to an

end. The observation of the Division Bench in para 19 of the judgment extracted above is not necessary to answer the question referred to the

Division Bench. Therefore, the observation of the Division Bench referred to above is only in the nature of obiter dictum .In Sivasubramaniam alias

Kandaswami v. Mohideen Pitchai 99 L.W. 198, S.A. Kader, J., dealing with the question with regard to 2 the total period during which suits

could not be tiled against an agriculturist debtor by virtue of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 as amended by the

Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977, the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (2nd Amendment) Act, 1977 and the Tamil Nadu Debt

Relief Laws (Amendment) Act, II of 1978, held as follows:

It is not in dispute that this is a debt due from an agriculturist. The Tamil Nadu Ordinance 1 of 1975 which has subsequently been replaced by the

Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 10 of 1975 bars the institution of a suit against an agriculturist debtor for a period of

one year from the date of the promulgation of the Ordinance, that is, from 16th January, 1975 to 15th January, 1976. On 15th January, 1976, the

Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 15 of 1976 came into force and S.3 of the said Act bars the institution of any suit for

recovery of any debt due from an agriculturist for a period of one year from the date of the commencement of that Act. The Tamil Nadu Debt

Relief Laws (Amendment) Act of 1977 amended the aforesaid period of one year as 1 year and 6 months. The Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws

(Second Amendment) Act of 1977 amended the above period of 1 year and 6 months as 2 years. The Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws

(Amendment) Act 2 of 1978 further amended the aforesaid period of 2 years as 2 years and 6 months. The result of the aforesaid five

amendments is that no suit could be filed against an agriculturist debtor from 16th January, 1975 to Nth July. 1978

I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by S.A. Kader, J. Therefore, it has to be held that the moratorium period imposed by the

Tamil Nadu Act 10/75 and Act 15 of 1976 came to an end on 14-7-1978 and the plaintiff was prevented from filing the suit only for a period of 3

years, 5 months and 29 days; i.e. from 16-1-75 to 14-7-78.

The promissory note, Ex.A1, is dated 7-8-1974. As per the Limitation Act, the plaintiff can file the suit on the basis of Ex.A1 within three years.

As I have found already that the plaintiff believed in good faith that the defendants are agriculturists entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Acts

10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 the plaintiff is entitled to a further period of 3 years 5 months and 29 days. The plaintiff has to file the suit on Ex.A1

before the expiry of the period of 6 years 5 months and 29 days from 7-8-1974, i.e., on or before 6-2-1981. The last date for filing the suit on

Ex.A1 for recovery of the amount due under Ex.A1 is 6-2-1981, but, the suit in this case was instituted by the plaintiff only on 7-2-1981.

Therefore, the suit filed on 7-2-1981 is clearly barred by limitation. The lower appellate court taking into account all the circumstances referred to

above, rightly held that the suit is barred by limitation. There are no merits in the second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly

the second appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.