Suit barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act.

M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.

1. The plaintiff-Sudarsan Chit Funds i& the petitioner and the petition has been filed against the judgment of the appellate Court (Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet), dated 12th December, 1977, by which the decree and' judgment of the trial Court dated 31st January, 1977, in O.S. No. 19 of 1976, dismissing the suit as barred by limitation, has been confirmed.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of the arrears of chit instalments under the promissory note executed by the defendants. The defendants pleaded, inter alia, that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit cannot be enforced against some of the defendants as they are entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Act. Separate issues were framed by the learned District Munsif and issue No. 3 reads whether the defendants are entitled to any Debt Relief Act benefits and additional issue was framed as to whether the suit is barred by time. On issue No. 3, the learned District Munsif gave a finding that the defendants are not entitled to any benefit under the Debt Relief Act. Only on additional issue he has given a finding that the suit is barred by limitation. On appeal by the plaintiffs in the Sub-Court at Udumalpet, the learned Subordinate Judge concurred with the above finding of the District Munsif on the question of limitation and dismissed the appeal with costs. Hence the present revision.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, 1961, the foreman of the chit shall not be entitled to claim consolidated payment of all the future subscriptions from a defaulting prized subscriber, unless he shall have demanded the same in writing, that in the present suit the foreman had issued lawyer notice under the original of Exhibit A-5 on 29th June, 1973, to the defendants, which were acknowledged by the defendants under Exhibits A-6 to A-8, though one notice under Exhibit A-9 was returned and that therefore the period of limitation will have to run from 29th June, 1973, and the suit which has been filed within three years thereafter is not barred by limitation. In support of the said argument, learned Counsel has relied upon the case reported in Laser v. P. Selvamony and Ors. (1978) T.L.N.J. 60, and in Kunjamma George v. Kesava Pillai 1963 K.L.T. 68. The decision in Laser's case (1978) T.L.N.J. 60, was rendered after the judgments of both the Courts below. The judgment in A.S. No. 46 of 1977 was rendered on 12th December, 1977, and the judgment in O.S. No. 19 of 1976 was rendered on 31st January, 1977. But the learned Counsel for the plaintiff in the lower Courts appears to have cited the decision in Kunjamma's case 1963 K.L.T. 68. Both the Courts below have applied the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in Thirurmalachariar v. S.P. Varadappa Chettiar in preference to the decision of the Kerala High Court.

4. In Laser's case (1978) T.L.N.J. 60, it has been held that under Section 25 of the Chit Funds Act, the foreman would not be entitled to claim a consolidated payment of all the future subscriptions from a defaulted prized subscriber, unless he shall have demanded the same in writing. In the above case, the foreman had given a notice in writing on 30th September, 1970, and therefore it was held that the suit filed within three years from the date of notice was well within time. In support of the above decision, the decision of the Kerala High Court in Kunjamma's case 1963 K.L.T. 68, was referred to.

5. In Nanoo Sukumaran v. P. Sankaran A.I.R. 178 Ker. 28, it was held, that under Section 32(1) of the Travancore Chitties Act (which is in pari materia with Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, 1961, in a case, where the defendants make any default in payment of future subscriptions, which default made the whole amount payable under Section 32(1) of the Travancore Chitties Act from the date when the foreman made a demand for the amount if no such demand was made by the