1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Periyakulam dated 23.12.1987 made in O.S. No. 78 of 1984 by the defendant in the said suit. The defendant in the said suit being aggrieved by the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. For convenience, the parties to this appeal will be referred so prayed before the trial Court.

2. Heard Ms. Sindhuja for the appellant and Dr. D. Anandan learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The factual matrix leading to the appeal could be summarised briefly, The Plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 42,262.50 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 26.9.1979. According to the plaintiff, the defendant executed the promissory note on 26.9.1979. promising to pay Rs. 30,000/- on demand with interest in favour of Rajendra wife of P.P.C. Dhanasekaran of Pannaikadu. The plaintiff secured assignment of the promissory note on 7.10.1981 for valid consideration and instituted the suit.

4. According to the plaintiff, the suit claim is not barred by limitation as the defendant had acknowledged the liability by letters dated 30.5.1981, 9.11.1981, 14.8.1982 and 6.1.1983 addressed to the plaintiff and hence the suit claim is not barred by limitation. The plaintiff caused a notice on 15.2.1984, which the defendant had evaded to receive. The plaint was presented on 11.4.1984.

5. The defendant pleaded that the promissory note is not supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- that the promissory note has been obtained for double the amount to cover the usurious rate of interest, that the defendant had not received Rs. 30,000/- as alleged that the defendant had repaid Rs. 22,500/- on various dates towards the promissory debt, that having paid the defendant had not collected the promissory note out of faith, that the defendant had written letters to the plaintiff with respect to certain money transactions due between them and not in respect of the suit promissory note, that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, that the suit claim is barred by limitation, that the plaintiff had not caused by any notice before instituting the suit, that the alleged acknowledgment are denied, that at any rate it is not acknowledgment of the suit promissory note much less a valid acknowledgment and that the plaintiff is not a holder in due course.

6. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The plaintiff filed a reply statement denying the claim that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 and also denied the other averments which may not be necessary to be set out in detail for the purpose of this appeal.

7. The defendant filed two additional written statements claiming benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13/1980 and also challenging the promissory note itself as not being the original and that it is a mutilated document and that no suit is maintainable on that basis.

8. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined the original promisee as PW1 and examined himself as PW2 while the defendant had examined himself as DW1. The plaintiff marked Exs.A1 to A8.

9. The trial Court had framed six issues. The first issue as to whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- was answered against the defendant. On the second issue, the trial Court held that the plea of discharge to the extent of 22,500/- had not been established. On the third issue the trial Court held that the suit claim is not barred by limitation. On the 4th issue, the trial Court held that the acknowledgements relate to the suit promissory note. On the 5th issue, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is a holder in due course and as a result, the trial Court granted a decree as prayed for, besides holding that the defendant is not entitled to claim relief under various debt relief enactments.