1. Theunsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The case in brief is as follows:

The defendant executed a pronote on 16.2.1977 for a sum of Rs.2,600 undertaking to pay interest at 12% per annum on demand. The defendant is an agriculturist and, as such, interest in claimed at 9% per annum. The defendant has properties worth more than Rs.20,000 and his annual income is also more than Rs.5,000 and, as such, he is not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. The suit could not be filed because of the moratorium period between 16.2.1977 and 13.6.1979. The suit is not barred by time.

3. The defendant resisted the suit, stating that the document is not supported by consideration. The defendant, his father and brother received a sum of Rs.4,000 from one Rajavelu on 5.8.1975 and executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage. Though the deed was styled as a bogiam, the defendant did not surrender possession and continued to enjoy the land. The mortgagee wanted only interest on Rs.4,000 in the shape of paddy. The mortgagee on 6.7.1976 received the bogiam amount of Rs.4,000 and assigned the same in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff after getting the assignment, reques