The moratorium period imposed by the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 came to an end on 14-7-1978, as the Acts were in force for a period of 3 years 5 months and 29 days, from 16-1-1975 to 14-7-1978.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 86 of 1981 on the file of the Sub-Court, Krishnagiri is the appellant in this second appeal. The defendants 1 and 3 in the said suit are the respondents in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the suit.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,250 due on a promissory note dated 7-8-1974 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 11,500 with interest at 9% per annum. The case of the plaintiff is that on 7-8-1974 the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 11,500 from the plaintiff-firm for purchasing lorry tyres and spare parts agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and in spite of repeated demands and notices ‘he defendants failed to pay any amount due under the promissory note dated 7-8-1974. The further case of the plaintiff is that the suit is not barred by limitation, because, the plaintiff, in good faith, believed that it was prevented from filing the suit during the period when the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 were in force.

3. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit promissory note is not a true and genuine document and it had been fabricated for the purpose of the suit. The defendants further contended that the suit is barred by limitation.

4. The trial court, on the basis of evidence on record both oral and documentary, found that the suit promissory note marked Ex. A1 is true and valid. The trial court found that the suit is barred by limitation and consequently dismissed the suit. As against the judgment of the trial court the plaintiff filed an appeal, A.S. No. 47 of 1984 on the file of the District Court Dharmapuri. The appellate court also confirmed the finding of the trial court that the suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the appeal.

5. Aggrieved by the judgments of the courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

6. Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counselfor the plaintiff would contend that the defendants owned agricultural lands; they are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 and the plaintiff was prevented from filing the suit for the recovery of the amount due under the suit promissory note during the period when the Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 were in force. The learned counsel contended that in any event the plaintiff believed in good faith that the defendants are entitled to the benefits of the Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 and that the plaintiff is prevented from filing the suit by the provisions contained in the Acts 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976 and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the moratorium period of 3 years and 6 months in calculating the period of limitation for the purpose of filing the suit on the basis of Ex. A1. Learned counsel further contended that the moratorium period under the Tamil Nadu Act 15 of 1976 came to an end on 15 7-1978 and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the moratorium period viz., from 16-1-1975 to 15-7-1978 (both days inclusive); if both these days viz., 16-1 1975 and 15-7-1978 are included, the total moratorium period will come to 3 years and 6 months; the normal period of limitation for filing a suit on the suit promissory note is 3 years from 7-8-1974; if the moratorium period of 3 years and 6 months is added to the normal period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, the plaintiff ean file the suit on the basis of Ex A1 within a period of 6 years and 6 months and the last date for filing the suit is 7-2-1981 and, therefore, the suit filed on 7-2-1981 in this case is within time. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned counsel for the defendants would contend that the averments in the plaint and in the reply statement filed by the plaintiff would go to show that the plaintiffs case, that it believed in good faith that it is prevented from filin