Examination of officer who issued the certificate is necessary and justified.

The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Sub-Judge, Tuticorin in O.S.306 of 1978. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.

2. This is a suit on a promissory note for Rs.8,160 with subsequent- interest and costs. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed from her a sum of Rs.8,160 on 1.9.1974 and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The plaintiff further claimed that the suit was not barred as she believed bona fide that the defendant was entitled to the benefits of the Moratorium Laws and the period between 15.1.1975 and 15.7.1978 has to be excluded, in computing the period of limitation.

3. The defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note but pleaded that he did not borrow any sum on it from the plaintiff. He contended that the suit promissory note was only a renewal of a prior promissory note dated 1.9.1971, executed by him in favour of the plaintiff's brother Lakshmana Pillai. It is his further case that the plaintiff's father Punnavanam Pillai wanted the defendant to take assignment of two mortgages in his favour and as the defendant had no money, he executed a promissory note on 1.9.1971 for Rs.6,000 in favour of the plaintiff's brother and the mortgages were accordingly assigned in his favour. On 1.9.1974, the said Punna-vanam Pillai wanted to renew the promissory note and took the promissory note in the name of his daughter. Subsequently, the said Punnavanam Pillai demanded money for the assignment of the mortgages and the defendant paid Rs.7,000 in full quit, but due to close relationship he did not take return of the promissory note. After the death of Punnavanam Pillai, the plaintiff and her brother having obtained possession of the suit promissory note, have filed this false suit. The defendant also contended that he was a teacher paying professional tax and that he is also an agricultural income tax assessee and the plaintiff's claim that she bona fide believed that the defendant was entitled to the moratorium law is false.

4. On the above pleadings the following issues were framed for trial by the trial court-

1. Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is a renewal of a prior promissory note in favour of the plaintiff's brother?

3. Whether the suit is in time?

4. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

5. The learned Subordinate Judge held on issues 1 and 2 that the suit promissory note was fully supported by consideration and that it was not a renewal of any prior promissory note. But on issue No.3, he held that the suit was out of time. Consequently he non-suited the plaintiff, but without costs. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has come in appeal.

6. The only point for consideration is whether the suit claim is in time?

7. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dated 1.9.1974, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.8160. The suit has been instituted only on 26.8.1978 more than three years, after the execution of the suit promissory note. The contention of the plaintiff is that she bona fide believed that the defendant was entitled to the benefits of the moratorium laws, namely, the Tamil Nadu indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 10 of 1975 and the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 15 of 1976 and the period between 15.1.1975 and 15.7.1978 has, therefore, to be excluded in computing the period of limitation and if the above period is so excluded, the suit is in time. Act 10 of 1975 and Act 15 of 1976 defines agriculturist thus-

“2(b) ‘agriculturist’ means a person who owns an interest in agricultural land, and who, by reason of such interest, is in possession of such land or is in receipt of the rents or profits thereof and shall include a lessee; but shall not include --

(i) a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Central Act 9 of 1932 ), or a company as defined in the Com