Suit by plaintiff on pronote has barred by limitation.

The above second appeal has been filed by the first defendant, who failed throughout, against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur, dated 30.11.1981 in A.S. No.27 of 1981 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur, dated 24. 1981 in O.S. No.439 of 1980.

2. First respondent- plaintiff filed the suit on a promissory note dated 5. 1970 said to have been executed by the first defendant- appellant and others for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,900 being the principal amount due. The case of the plaintiff in the trial court was that the first defendant, his father Kulandaivelu and one Kulandai Servai jointly executed the promissory note in question for a sum of Rs .5,000 on 5. 1970 for valuable consideration received by them, that except the first defendant, the other two persons died in 1974, that defendants 3 and 4 are the heirs of Kulandai Servai, that defendants 1 and 2 are the heirs of Kulandaivelu, that on 4. 1973 a sum of Rs.100 has been paid, that the said payment has been endorsed on the promissory note, which has been marked as Ex.A-2 and which has also been signed by the first defendant, that the defendants are entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Acts 15 of 1975,16 of 1976, 40 of 1978 and 40 of 1979, that the plaintiff was under the bona fide impression that the defendants are entitled to the benefits of the said Acts and therefore, the period from 11. 1975 to 16. 1979, namely 4 years, 5 months and 28 days, has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation, that such exclusion is permissible under the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, that the endorsement of payment made by the first defendant is binding on the other heirs of the first executant, that the defendants are not entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 and that since the defendants having not paid the amount, the suit has come to be filed for recovering the same.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the other defendants contending that the suit was barred by limitation, that though the suit promissory note was executed, it was not supported by consideration, that it was executed pursuant to an arrangement to secure the payments for the supply of flowers, that defendants 3 and 4 are not related as brother and sister, that defendants 2 and 3 are not the sole heirs of Kulandaivelu and there are other heirs, that Kulandaivelu Servai was not alive on the date when the endorsement was made and therefore, he could not have made the endorsement, Ex. A-2, that the first defendant, who was a divided son, had never acted as the agent of the deceased Kulandaivelu, that the defendants are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

.4. On the above claims and counter claims, the suit came to be tried and both parties adduced oral evidence and documents were marked only on the side of the plaintiff.

.The learned trial Judge by his judgment and decree dated 24. 1981 decreed the suit holding that the suit promissory note was duly supported by consideration, that the endorsement of payment, Ex.A-2, was valid, binding on all the defendants and that the defendants are not entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and that the suit cannot be said to be barred by limitation as contended by the first defendant. Aggrieved, the first defendant pursued the matter on appeal before the District Court, West Thanjavur. The learned District Judge also by the Judgment and decree dated 30.11.1981 concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Hence, the above second appeal.

.5. This Court at the time when the second appeal was admitted on 8. 1983 formulated the following substantial question of law:

."When Sec.34 of Act 40 of 1979 applies only to cases where the suit cannot be filed for certain sum in view of the bar under Sec.7 of Act 40 of 1978, and in the instan