Suit not barred by limitation.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The defendant was having dealings with N.Somasundaram and K.Somasundaram who were doing business in partnership in the manufacture and sale of vessels under the name and style of Somu and Somu. The other partner K.Somasundaram retired from the partnership and a new firm was formed under the name and style with another partner S.Navaneetham. As per the document of the dissolution of the former firm, the amount owing by the defendant alongwith other items was assigned in favour of the new firm. Hence, the suit is instituted by the present plaintiff. The defendant was purchasing vessels and was having dealings with the new defunct firm from 11.4.1973 till 31.3.1980 and as per accounts maintained by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.5391.11 is due by the defendant. The defendant has not paid the amount inspite of repeated demand. The plaintiff is relinquishing a sum of Rs.391.11 and limiting the claim to Rs.5,000. The above amount is arrived at after appropriating later credits to earlier debits. As per the accounts, three items are alone in time. The suit for items dated 1.3.1976, 20.3.1976 and 6.4.1976 should have been filed within three years. As the defendant is an agriculturist, filing of suits between 1.1.1975 and 15.7.1978 was stayed by various enactments and the period of three years and 6 months has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. If it is done so, the suit is in time. The plaintiff bona fide thought that the defendant is an agriculturist and hence, the period of time during which filing of suit against agriculturist was stayed has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. The plaintiff reliably learnt that the defendant is an agriculturist owning lands at Pollachi. Further, the defendant has acknowledged his liability to pay the suit claim by post cards. The suit is in time under various provisions of Debt Relief Act and Limitation Act.

3. The case of the defendant is as follows:

It is not stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs firm has been duly registered. The suit is hit by Sec.69 of the Indian Partnership Act. The suit is barred by limitation. The transaction were one of sale and purchase. Therefore, the Debt Relief Act will not extend the period of limitation. The defendant is not an Agriculturist. The copy of the accounts shows that the assets of the defendant firm had been taken over by the residual partner N.Somasundaram. The recitals show that the amount should be paid only to N.Somasundaram. The suit amount even if true cannot belong to new firm. The date of assignment of due amount is omitted. Such assignment even if true is void and invalid. It is false to state that the defendant had dealings with defunct firm from 11.4.1973 to 31.3.1980 and that sum of Rs.5,391.11 is due. This defendant is not liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff. It is denied that the firm was dissolved and the same was reconstituted. It is not been alleged that the present partners name have been given and shown in the A certificate of the register. It is denied that the other partner K.Somasundaram retired from the partnership and new firm was formed. It is denied that the plaintiff bona fide thought that the defendant is an agriculturist and hence, the period of time during which filing of the suit was stayed has to be excluded. This defendant is not an Agriculturist. It is incorrect to state that the defendant has acknowledged liability to pay the suit claim by post cards. As the suit is based on accounts, the provisions of Debt Relief Act are not applicable.

4. On the above pleadings, the trial court has framed five issues. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court has granted decree with costs. The defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.3 of 1984. The learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupur by judgment dated 5.7.1984 allowed the appeal a