A suit for recovery of money is barred by limitation if the defendant is not a debtor and the plaintiff is not under the bona fide belief that the defendant is entitled to the benefits of various debt relief enactments in force during the relevant period.

.1. The defendant, who has been successful before the trial Court and unsuccessful before the first appellate court, is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent instituted the suit in O.S. No.405 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi against the appellant herein for the recovery of the amount due on accounts. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit claim is neither true nor correct and that the defendant is not liable to pay the suit claim. The trial court also held that the suit claim is barred by limitation. On appeal by the plaintiff, the first appellate court found that there were dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.9,5361. On the question of limitation also, the first appellate Court held that the suit claim is not barred by limitation. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

2. The parties in this second appeal will be referred as arrayed before the trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced arguments on the plea of limitation while reserving his rights to raise the contention in respect of merits of the suit claim.

.3. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed by this court: -

.Whether it is not erroneous on the part of this court to give to the plaintiff the favour of the presumption of good faith when the plaintiff himself admitted that he know that the defendant was not entitled to the Debt Relief Act?"

4. Even according to the plaint averments, the cause of action for the suit arose on 4. 1974 when the account commenced and on 33. 1977 when the balance was struck, and from 1. 1975 when the Ordinance 1 of 1975 came into force and the plaintiff bona fidely believed that he could not prosecute the claim and on 20.2.1980, when the plaintiff issued a lawyers notice and on 22. 1990, the defendant repudiated the liability. Admittedly, the suit plaint has been presented on 1st April, 1980.

5. One more averment in the plaint which is relevant, reads thus:-

"The defendant is a Mirasudar (landlord) and he owns a rice mill also."

In paragraph 4 of the Plaint, it has been stated thus:- "The plaintiff submits that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the various Debt Relief Acts and therefore did not come forward with the suit earlier. The claim therefore in any event is not barred by limitation."

.6. The plaintiff had examined P.Ws.1 and 2, while the defendant had examined himself as D.W.1. The plaintiff had marked Exs.A-1 to A-52. Admittedly, this is a suit on accounts. According to the plaintiff the defendants father had taken certain advances which he had failed to repay. The acknowledgement if any by the defendant is by

.Ex.A.38, which is the account book for the year 1975-76. The defendant had affixed his signature on Ex.A.38 on 24. 1975. After 24. 1975 there had been no acknowledgment by the defendant. As such the plaint which has been presented on 4. 1980 is definitely barred by limitation.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ex.A.38, acknowledgement is dated 24. 1975 and the suit not having been filed within three years from that date, the suit claim is barred by limitation. Per contra, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the defendant is a debtor against whom institution of suits under various debt relief enactments have been barred and that the plaintiff was under the bona fide belief and therefore the suit claim is not barred by limitation.

8. It was further contended that the period covered by the debt relief enactments have to be excluded and if the period is excluded, the suit claim is within time and it is not barred by limitation. It was also further contended by the counsel for the plaintiff that as per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff the balance was struck during the year 1976-77 and 1977-78 and therefore the suit claim is n