An acknowledgment of liability made during the period of exclusion under a moratorium legislation cannot save limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the period of exclusion cannot be treated as a 'prescribed period' under the Act.

The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvannamalai in O.S. 86 of 1979. The fist defendant is the appellant.

2. This is a suit on two promissory notes. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant, who is the father of the second defendant, borrowed from the plaintiff Rs. 7800 on 30-10-1972, and executed the suit first promissory note agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 12 per cent per annum. He paid on several occasions in all Rs. 2614, and the balance is due. The first defendant again borrowed Rs. 2000 from the plaintiff on 19-9-1974, and executed the suit second promissory note promising to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent per annum. He has paid Rs. 440 in all towards this promissory note and the balance is due. In view of the Debt Relief Acts and Moratorium laws, the suit is not barred. As the defendants 1 and 2 constituted a joint Hindu family, the second defendant is also liable to pay the debt.

3. The first defendant contended that he borrowed Rs. 6700 only from the plaintiff's father in 1967 for starting a new business and the promissory note was executed in favour of his son in view of the earlier debt. He also claimed to have repaid Rs. 2998 towards the said promissory note. He admitted the borrowing of Rs. 2000 under the suit second promissory note and claimed to have paid Rs. 640 therefor. He also claimed the benefits of various Debt Relief Acts. The suit is also barred by time.

4. The second defendant filed a written statement claiming that the debt was not for family purposes. The first defendant has started a new business in his individual capacity and the second defendant is therefore not liable.

5. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial-

(1) Whether the suit 'A' promissory note is not supported by consideration?

(2) Whether the partial discharge pleaded is true?

(3) Whether the second defendant is not liable and therefore unnecessary party to the suit?

(4) Whether the defendant is not liable for interest for Rs. 2959?

(5) Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?

(6) To what relief?

6. The learned Subordinate Judge held on issue 1 that the suit fist promissory note was fully supported by consideration. On issue 2 he held that the first defendant has paid Rs. 2718. In respect of Ex.A.2, the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the first defendant has paid Rs. 480. On issue 3 the second defendant was not liable. The Court below also found that the first defendant was liable for interest. Issue 5 was answered in favour of the plaintiff and held that the suit was not barred. In the result the suit was decreed against the first defendant only less Rs.144 and less interest that had accrued from 22-7-1975 to 15-1-1976 with costs. The suit against the second defendant was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved thereby the first defendant has come in appeal. The plaintiff has not filed any cross-appeal or cross-objections.

7. The only point that is canvassed before me by Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned counsel for the appellant, is on the question of limitation.

8. Point :Ex.A.1 promissory note is dated 30-10-1972 and the suit ought to have been filed on or before 30-10-1975, but it has been filed only on 12-02-1979. The plaintiff claims the benefit of the moratorium legislations and exclude the period as the first defendant is an indebted person. An 'indebted person' under the Tamil Nadu Act 48 of 1975 means any person from whom any debt is due provided that he shall not be assessed to income tax or sales tax or property tax of the aggregate annual rental value of not less than Rs. 2400. It is admitted that the first defendant is not an assessee of income-tax or sales tax. Exs. A.3 to A-6 are property tax receipts in the name of the first defendant which show that his house has been assessed on an annual rental value of Rs. 1640 only. He is therefore, an indebted person within the meaning of these moratorium