1. Challenge in this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1998 passed in A.S.No.301 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi and reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1995 passed in O.S.No.42 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court.

3. Suit for recovery of money.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.11,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.12.1989 agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 12% per annum and in evidence of the said borrowal, executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and despite several requests, the defendant had not repaid the said amount as promised and as the court was closed from 25.12.1992 to 03.01.1993, on account of vacation, the suit is not barred by time and hence the suit for recovery of money.

5. The case of the defendant in brief is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the defendant had been having money transactions with the plaintiff's father Duraisamy Naidu since 1969 onwards and he used to obtain promisso