The acknowledgment of debt for limitation purposes must be explicit, written, and made before the expiration of the limitation period; mere disputes do not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

P. Vadamalai, J.

This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 21.03.2022, made in A.S.No.59 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 27.02.2018, passed in O.S.No.952 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai.

2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.952 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money from the appellant/defendant.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in O.S.No.952 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai.

4. Case of the plaintiff:

The plaintiff and the defendant are relatives. The defendant was doing jewellery business. The defendant obtained loan of Rs.1,90,000/- on 01.09.2002 and another loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on 05.12.2002 from the plaintiff. The defendant acknowledged the same in a stamped pocket notebook. The defendant also borrowed a total sum of Rs.17,20,000/- on various dates from family members of the plaintiff. The defendant paid monthly interest for total loan of Rs.3,40,000/- upto 2004 as noted in the pocket notebook. Thereafter, the defendant has not paid any amount, in spite of efforts taken by the plaintiff, it went in vain. Instead, the defendant filed PCEIOP.No.20/2006 before the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai with allegation that the plaintiff claimed exorbitant interest for loan upto May 2006 and that the petition was filed on 20.10.2006. Therefore, the plaintiff filed this suit within three years from 20.10.2006, as the defendant acknowledged his loan in PCEIOP.No.20/2006.

5. Case of the Defendant

The money transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is deposit. So the trial Court has no jurisdiction when the Special Court under TNPID Act is functioning. The proceedings in PCEIOP.No.20/2006 are made to disclose the payment of exorbitant interest and to get back the documents from the plaintiff, it will not be an acknowledgment as defined in the Limitation Act. As per the plaint averment, the limitation ends in September 2005 for the first loan and ends in December 2005 for 2nd loan. The PCEIOP.No.20/2006 was filed on 20.10.2006. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. During trial, on the plaintiff's side, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 5 exhibits were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5. On the defendant's side, no witness was examined and no exhibit was marked.

7. The trial Court has framed the following issues:

(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant?

(2) To what other reliefs and costs?

7.1. Additional Issue:

Whether the suit is barred by Limitation Act,1963?.

8. After hearing both sides, the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai, concluded that the suit is barred by limitation as defined in Section 18 of the Limitation Act and thereby dismissed the suit by passing judgment and decree dated 27.02.2018.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.952 of 2012, the plaintiff preferred the first civil appeal in A.S.No.59 of 2021 before the I Additional District Court, Madurai. The first Appellate Court, after hearing both, passed the