Question of limitation does not arise due to second endorsement.

1. The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 200 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvaiyaru, who have succeeded before the trial Court and lost before the first appellate Court are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is

directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur made in A.S. No. 105 of 1986 in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granting a decree as prayed for by the respondent/plaintiff.

2. At the time of admission, the following two substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:

1) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the suit claim is not barred by limitation especially when the suit is filed beyond the period of three years from the date of first endorsement and the second endorsement is more than 3 years and 2 days after the date of the first endorsement?

2) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in assuming that the defendants are debtors as defined under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1970.

3. Heard Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan for the appellants and Mr.R. Kannan for the respondents.

4. For convenience, the parties to this appeal will be referred as arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The respondents/plaintiffs instituted the suit for recovery of sum of Rs.8925 being the principal and interest due on the promissory note dated 15. 1975 executed by the defendants father. The plaintiff had prayed for a decree for recovery of the amount due out of the estate of deceased Dhanasamy in the hands of the defendants.

6. According to the plaintiff, the defendants father late Dhanasamy borrowed Rs.5000 on 15. 1975 under the suit promissory note Ex.A.1, agreeing to repay the principal with interest at 12% per annum. The said promisor Dhanasamy made a payment of Rs.10 on 5. 1978 and endorsement (Ex.A2) was made on the said Ex.A1 suit promissory note. So also another endorsement was made by the said Dhanasamy remitting Rs. 10 on 15. 1981, which has been marked as Ex.A3. The original promisor died during October 1983 leaving behind the defendants, who have succeeded to his estate.

7. The plaintiffs had further pleaded that the defendants are not entitled to the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 as they owned property worth more than Rs. One lakh. However, the plaintiff admitted that the defendants are liable to pay interest at the reduced rate as they are agriculturists in terms of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979.

8. The second defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the first defendant. In the written statement the execution of the promissory note and passing of consideration was admitted. But the defendants put forward a plea of discharge within one year after its execution. It is the further case of the defendants that after the discharge, the plaintiff had not returned back the promissory note immediately as they are close relatives and cordial relationship existed between them.

9. According to the defendants, misunderstandings arose between the defendants father and the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff created false endorsements of part payments and had come forward with the suit. According to the defendants, the alleged endorsements Exs.A2 and A3 are rank forgery and the suit claim is also barred by limitation. It was further contended that the acknowledgment having been made after the expiry of the limitation period, the suit claim is barred by limitation.

10. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, besides marked Exs.A1 to A3. The second defendant had examined himself as DW1.

11. The trial Court, while negativing the plea of discharge put forward by the defendants found that the endorsements, namely Exs. A2 and A3 respectively made on 5. 1978 and 15. 1981 on the promissory note are true and genuine. However, as Ex.A3 acknowledgment has been obtained after the expiry of the limitation period, three years from the date of Ex.A2 acknowledgment (endorsemen