Skip to content


Lakshminarayan Reddiar Vs. T.K.S. Balarama Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. Nos. 3350 and 3351 of 1983
Judge
Reported inAIR1984Mad370; (1985)1MLJ148
ActsTamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1979 - Sections 7, 8, 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 16, 32(1), 33 and 33(1); Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1978 - Sections 6 and 7; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 2, Rule 2
AppellantLakshminarayan Reddiar
RespondentT.K.S. Balarama Chettiar
Appellant AdvocateR.S. Venkatachari, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK. Sampath, Adv.
Cases ReferredChetty v. Adaikappa Chetti
Excerpt:
commercial - recovery - sections 7, 8, 8 (1), 8 (2), 8 (3), 16, 32 (1), 33 and 33 (1) of tamil nadu debt relief act, 1979 and sections 6 and 7 of tamil nadu debt relief act, 1978 - respondent filed suit to recover certain amount from petitioner - petitioner challenged suit and contended that it is not maintainable as respondent got decree in earlier suit under act of 1978 - whether suit maintainable - provisions of act of 1979 enable respondent to further recover amount - respondent had taken steps for such recovery - respondent had not in any manner waived his right to recover such amounts from petitioner - no bar for suit to be instituted - petition dismissed. - - the ,recovery of one half of the principal amount as well as one half of the interest in ,accordance with the.....order1. these civil revision ,petitions have been preferred by the defendant in 0. s. nos. 2627 and 2626 of ,!1981 respectively, district munsif's court, yriddhachalam. those suits were instituted by the respondent herein for the recovery !of certain amounts from the petitioner on ,the basis of promissory notes dt. 24-3-197.1, 19-9-1974 and 24-11-1974. the promissory notes dated 24-3-1971 formed the subject ,matter of 0. s. 2627 of 1981 while 0 . s. 2626 of 1981 related to the other two promissory notes dt.,19-9-1974, and 24-1-11974. in so far as the promissory note dt. 24-3-1971 is concerned, the respondent 'earlier filed 0. s. 1910 of 1978 for. the ,recovery of one half of the principal amount as well as one half of the interest in ,accordance with the provisions of t. n. act 40 of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. These civil revision ,petitions have been preferred by the defendant in 0. S. Nos. 2627 and 2626 of ,!1981 respectively, District Munsif's court, Yriddhachalam. Those suits were instituted by the respondent herein for the recovery !of certain amounts from the petitioner on ,the basis of promissory notes dt. 24-3-197.1, 19-9-1974 and 24-11-1974. The promissory notes dated 24-3-1971 formed the subject ,matter of 0. S. 2627 of 1981 while 0 . S. 2626 of 1981 related to the other two promissory notes dt.,19-9-1974, and 24-1-11974. In so far as the promissory note dt. 24-3-1971 is concerned, the respondent 'earlier filed 0. S. 1910 of 1978 for. the ,recovery of one half of the principal amount as well as one half of the interest in ,accordance with the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978. In the course of that suit, ,the respondent slated that as the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Ordinance of 1978 and also T. N. Act 17 of 1976 and there was a statutory discharge of and interdict against the recovery of 'anything more than one half of the principal and one half of the interest, the ,balance alone statutorily due was claimed. :That claim was also further stated to be in ,time on account of the endorsement made on the promissory note on 21-8-1973 and 17-9-1974, and also on account of the bar against the institution of suits against agriculturists having been in force 'between 15-1-1975 and 15-7-1978 and the benefits of Tamil Nadu Ordinance of 1978 and T. N. Act 77 of 1976 being available to the petitioner. On 8-3-1979, the petitioner made an endorsement on the plaint in 0. S. 1910 of 1978 submit' to a, decree as prayed for, but praying for Six months time .

2. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suits instituted by the respondent herein in 0. S. 2627 and 2626 of 1981, for the recovery of further amounts under the' promissory notes, after the earlier institution of suits thereon in 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978 and the obtaining of decrees therein in accordance with T. N. Act 40 of 1978, were not maintainable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that owing to the operation of the provisions of Tamil Nadu,' Ordinance V of 1978 and later Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, the respondent was prevented by statute from recovering the entire amount due under the promissory notes, but was permitted to recover only one half of the principal and one half of the interest as was done in 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978, and when the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 enabled the respondent to further recover amounts in accordance with the provisions of that Act, the respondent had taken. steps for such recovery and inasmuch as the respondent had not in any manner waived his right to recover the amounts from the petitioner, there could be no bar for the institution of a suit to recover such further amounts as could be recovered under the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979.

3. In order to appreciate this contention, it would be necessary at this stage to refer to the salient provisions of T. N. Acts 40 of 1978 and 40 of 1979. T. N. Act 40 of 1978 repealed Tamil Nadu Ordinance V of 1978 and was intended to afford relief to the debtors by way of liquidation of debts and scaling down of debts as well. Under S. 6(l) of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, all debts payable by any debtor on 14-7-1978 were to be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of that Act. A proviso was incorporated S. 6(l) to the effect that debts already scaled down under Ss. 8, 9-A, 10 11 and 12 of T. N. Act 4 of 1938 or Ss. 7, 8, 9, 10 and I I of T. N. Act 38 of 1972, were not to be scaled down again under the provisions of Chap. 11 of T. N. Act 40 of 1978. S. 6(2) of the Act laid an embargo upon the recovery of amounts in excess of the scaled down amount from a debtor or from out of his property. In other words, S. 6(2) of T. N. Act 40 of 1 978, confined and restricted the recoverability of a debt due from a debtoror from out of his property to that amount, which was the scaled down amount under Chapter 11. S. 7 of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 provided for scaling down -of the debt which had been on each occasion advanced or incurred before 14-7-1978,and payable by the debtor on that date.S. 7(l)(a) wholly discharged the whole of the principal amount together with interest, where on each occasion the principal amount advanced or incurred did not exceed Rs. 500.

4. Section 70)(b) made provision for cases in which the principal amount of debt advanced or incurred on each occasion was in excess of Rs. 500, but did not exceed Rs. 5000 and in such cases, one half of the principal amount so advanced or incurred and one half of the interest was deemed to be statutorily discharged and only the balance was repayable. S. 7(l)(c) dealt with a case where the principal amount of debt advanced or incurred was in excess of Rs. 5000 but was less than Rs. 10000, in which 'ease the principal amount alone was repayable and the interest was deemed to be wholly discharged. Explanations I to'111 to S. 7(l) are not germane for purposes of the present case and need not,- therefore, be noticed. Under S. 7(2)(i) of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, if a debtor had already made payments towards principal or interest or both equal to or in excess of the aggregate amount as scaled down, then, the debt: shall be deemed to have been wholly discharged. In cases where there was a, shortfall between the amount already, paid by a debtor towards principal or interest or both and the amount as scaled down under S. 7(l). S. 7(2)(ii) -directed the repayment by the debtor of only so much of the amount, as would make up such short fall. A proviso to S. 7(2) stated that subject to the provisions of S. 18 of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, any payment made by a debtor, already in excess of the amount scaled down either by way of principal or interest or both would not entitle to the debtor to a claim for refund. The other provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 are not very relevant. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner was a debtor within the meaning of 2(3) T. N. Act 4-0-of 1978 and that the debts were payable by him on 14-7-: 1978. Undoubtedly, therefore, under S. 7(l)(b) of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, only one half of the muncipal amount and one half of the interest became re-payable by the petitioner, which was also the amount recoverable by the respondent from the petitioner under S. 6(2) of T. N. Act 40 (if 1978. It is on this basis that the earlier suits in 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978 were instituted by the respondent and decrees obtained and no dispute was raised by the petitioner that he was not a debtor entitled to, the benefits of T. N. Act 40 of 1978. On the contrary, the petitioner made an endorsement on 8-3-1979 accepting the,stand of the respondent and stating that he had no objection to the suits being decreed as prayed for-, but praying that six months time for payment may be granted and it was on this footing, decrees were also passed. The plaints in 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978 marked as Ex A 2 also proceeded on the basis of Tamil Nadu Ordinance V of 1978 which was subsequently repealed by T. N. Act 40 of 1978. It is, therefore,obvious that at th e time of the institution of the suits in 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978,the respondent could not have claimed the recovery of the entire amount due under the promissory notes in view of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Ordinance of 1978, subsequently replaced by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. It was only on account of that, the respondent was obliged to recover in 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978 such amounts as were repayable by and recoverable from the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Ordinance V of 1978, subsequently replaced by T. N. Act 40 of 1978,. But differently, there was a - statutory bar imposed on the respondent be the provisions of S. 6(2) read with S. 7(l)(b) of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, from recovering the entire amount due on the promissory notes sued upon in 6. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978.All that the respondent was permitted under that statute to recover was only one half of the principal amount and one half of the interest, as, statutorily, the balance was deemed to be discharged. Therefore, a full satisfaction of the debt was statutorily brought about by enabling the creditor to rpcover one half of the principal and one half of the interest and providing for the statutory discharge of the balance.

5. While matters stood thus, T. N. Act 40- of 1979 was enacted for the purpose of providing relief to indebted persons. Under S. 7(l) of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 all debts payable by any debtor on 14-7-1978 were to be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of Chap. 11. The proviso thereto stated that a debt already scaled down under some of the provisions of T. N. Acts 4 of 1938 and 38 of 1972, was not to be scaled down again. Sec. 7(2) 'of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 provided that no sum in excess of the amount as so scaled down shall be recoverable from the debtor or from any land or interest in land belonging to him or by attachment and sale of his property. Under Sec. 8, with reference to debts incurred prior to 14-7-1978, as in this case, scaling down was provided for. If a debtor had paid to the creditor one and a half times the amount of the principal, whether by way of principal or interest or both, such debt, including the principal, was deemed to be wholly discharged. However, where the sums repaid by way of principal or interest or both, fell short of one and a half times the amount of, the principal, then, only so much of the amount, as would make up such shortfall, was repayable and no more. S. 8(3) enacted that nothing contained in cls. (1) and (2) of S. 8 shall be deemed to require the creditor to refund any sum, which had been paid to him or to increase the liability of a debtor to pay any sum in excess of the amount which would have been payable by him, if this Act (T. N. Act 40 of 1979) had not been passed. Explanations I to III to S. 8 are unnecessary for purposes of this case. S. 16 provided for amendment of decrees passed by Courts for the repayment of a debt before the publication of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Within six months from the date of such publication of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, on the application of any judgment-debtor, who is a debtor within the meaning of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, or of any member of the joint family or of the decree,-holder, the Court which passed the decree, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, was enabled to amend the decree or enter up satisfaction. Ss. 31 to 34 of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 are very important. Under debtors under T. N. Acts 40 of 1978 of S. 31, effective from 15-7-1978. T. N. Act- of 1979 is different. While the provisions 40 of 1978, therein referred to as the said Act was repealed. Ss. 32 to 34 became operative from 13-6-1979. S. 32(l) made inapplicable S. 8 of Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891 to the repeal of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 by T. N. Act 40 of 1979 S . 32(i) declared that proceedings taken under T. N. Act 40 of 1978 and pending before the date of publication of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall abate. Under S. 32(3), no legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under T. N.Act 40 of 1978, shall be instituted, continued or enforced under T. N. Act 40 of 1978. S. 33 provided for the removal of doubts. S. 33(l) referred to the discharge of any liability incurred or arising under a debt due from a debtor under T. N. Act 40 of 1978 and stated that such liability incurred or arising under a debt due from a debtor shall be seemed never to have been discharged under T. N. Act 40 of 1978, as if that Act was not passed and that every debt shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979.',S._33(2) made an exception in case of proceedings in which orders passed had been executed or satisfied in full before the date of the publication of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. S. 34 provided for exclusion of time for instituting suits and filing execution applications for purposes of limitation, S. 34(l) excluded the period commencing on and from 15-1-1476, up tothe, date of publication of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 in - the Tamil Nadu Government 1 Gazette, for enforcing liability arising out of a debt due from a debtor against whom the institution of a suit or the making of an application for execution, was barred by T. N. Act 40 of 1978. Sec. 34(2) enabled the further proceedings in a suit or in relation to execution to be proceeded with under the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 from the stage reached when such proceedings were stayed by any of the nrovisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 .

6. From the aforesaid conspectus of the provisions, it is obvious that the basis of relief afforded to indebted agriculturesrists Act T. N. Act 40 of 1978 enabled a creditor to recover only one half of the debt due and one halt of the interest thereon and discharged statutorily the balance payable by and recoverable from the debtor, the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 permitted the recovery of the principal and the interest not in excess of one and a half times the principal. Even in cases to which the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, applied and appropriate relief had been granted, T. N. Act 40 of 1979, by S.32, nullified the effect of - such application of the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 by, making inapplicable S. 8 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, and also by specifically providing under S. 33 that any liability arising under any debt due from a debtor shall be deemed never 1to have been discha rged under T. N. Act 40 of 1978, as if that Act was not passed. At the same time, it was also provided that such debt shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. The solitary exception to the non-applicability of the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 is to be found in S. 33(2) of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 - that being a case, where the order passed had i! been executed or satisfied in full, before the date of publication of T. N. Act 46-',Oi 1979, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. It is thus seen that though Act ,T. N. Act 40 of 1978, a particular scheme of scaling down and discharge had been provided, that had been totally abrogated, annulled and set at naught by the, provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. The statutory discharge with reference to one half of the principal and one half of the interest under S. 7(l)(b) of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 has been declared to be of no avail under Ss. 31, 32(l), and (3) and 33(l) of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, and it has been specifically provided under Ss. 32(l) and (3) that the proceedings taken or liability incurred would not be preserved.. despite the repeal of T. N. Act 40 of 1978'by T. N. Act 40 of 1979, and that legal proceedings and remedies with reference to- rights,. privileges, obligations or liabilities Acquired, accrued or incurred under T. N. Act 40 of 1978 shall not be continued or enforced under that Act, namely, T. N. Act 40 of 1978 Thus it is clear from Secs. 7(l) and (2), 8, and 31 to 34 of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 that excepting a case falling under Sec. 33(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, the earlier proceedings taken under T. N. Act 40 of 1978, would all abate and to every debt, the scaling down provisions in T. N. Act 40 of 1979, has to be applied. It has earlier been noticed in this case that the respondent had obtained decrees in 0. S. 19 10- and 1909 of 1978 in accordance with the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, and the decrees had remained unexecuted or not satisfie4, In such a situation applying the aforesaid provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 particularly Ss. 31 to 34, with reference to the debts due from the petitioner to the respondent, the scaling down provisions under Ss. 7 and 8 of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 would apply. In other words, with reference to the debts recoverable from the petitioner by the respondent on the basis of the promissory notes referred -to earlier, the respondent was entitled to recover one and a half times the amount of principal, whether by way. of principal or interest or both under S. 8(l) of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. It is not the case of the petitioner that by the institution of 0. S. 2627 and 2626 of 1981, the respondent was attempting to recover amounts from the petitioner in excess of what has been provided for under S. 8(l) of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. The limited objection of the petitioner was that a second suit for the recovery of further amounts towards principal and the interest under. the promissory notes would not lie. ' The inability of the respondent to recover the entire amount on the promissory notes under the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, was not on account of any fault of the, respondent. However, with reference. to the liability of the petitioner arising on the promissory notes sued upon in 0. S. 1910 and 1909 , of 1978, full satisfaction thereof was provided statutorily by granting a decree with reference to one half of the principal and one half of the interest and by deeming the balance, discharged or wiped out, which was subsequently annulled by the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. The statutory , discharge of wiping out of one half of the principal and one half of the interest provided for under S. 1(l)(b) of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 was removed or erased by the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 Particularly, S. 33(l) of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, made provision for the revival or restoration of the riability deemed to have been discharged under the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, as if that Act (T. N. Act 40 of 1978)' was not passed. That would mean that the deemed. Discharge provided for under S. 7(l)(b) of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 should be deemed never to have taken place at all. That in turn would revise the right to recover one half of the principal and one half of the interest thereon deemed to have been discharged under S. 7(l)(b) of T. N. Act 40 of 1978.That sucha revived or restored right could also be enforced by excluding the time between 15-1-1976 and ending with the date of publication of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette is I clearly established by S. 34(l) of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. Thus, a consideration of the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 and 40 of 1979 clearly establishes that the deemed discharge of the liability in respect of one half of the principal and one half of the interest under the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, was not preserved under T. N. Act 40 of 1979 but, on the contrary, the discharge of liability under the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 was wiped out, as if T. N. Act 40 ' of 1978, had not been passed. The right to recover the entire amount due to the creditor was made available to him, subject to the provisions of Ss. 7 and 8 of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, and the right of action was also saved from the bar of limitation. The statutory deemed discharge under T. N. Act 40 of 1978 having been statutorily undone by the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, whatever rights were originally available to the creditor were restored to him protected from the bar of limitation to be enforced within 'the framework of T. N. Act 40 of 1979.

7. It now remains to consider only two related aspects with reference to Ss. 8 and 16 of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. S. 8(3) at first blush would Appear to suggest that the debtor ought not to be saddled with liability in any sum, in excess of the amount, which would have been payable by him, if T. N. Act 40 of 1979 had (not) been passed. That provision, in my view, cannot be so read as to preserve the rights of a debtor under T. N. Act 40 of 1978, for, that would plainly conflict with Ss. 32(l) and 33(l) of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. All that S. 8(3) provides for is that by reason of the application of S. 8(l) and (2) of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, the liability of a debtor cannot increased, in excess of the amount that ,yould have been payable by him, if the rovision of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 were not '.iere. To put differentiv, this provision ,imply means that if & liability of a Zebtor was less than one and a half times the amount of principal, whether by way of principal or interest or both, Sec. 8(l) or (2) cannot be so applied as to impose a further liability on the debtor upto the limit of one and a half times the amount of principal. Therefore, S. 8(3) of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 also cannot be put against the respondent. The only other provision which may be considered to be applicable on the facts of this case is S. 16 of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, which provides for amendment of decrees. That section presupposes the court having passed a decree for the repayment of a debt, in which event, on an application by judgment-debtor or others mentioned therein within six months from the date of publication of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the decree can be scaled down and amended according to the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. In this case, there was no decree at all with reference to one half of the principal amount and one half of the interest in the suits 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978, because of the statutory discharge under S. 7(l)(b) of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, as it then stood. Therefore, in the absence of any decree passed by the court with reference to one half of the claim towards principal and the one half of the interest, S. 16 of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, cannot be held applicable to the respondent.

8. 'With reference to the claim made in 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978 and the decrees passed therein, the position was that there was satisfaction of the liability of the petitioner to the respondent by statutorily providing for a discharge of half the liability of the principal and interest and by granting a, decree in respect of the other half of the principal and interest. The result was full and complete satisfaction partly statutory and partly through Court process, to the creditor. The very bottom of the satisfaction thus afforded to the creditor by the partial statutory discharge of the debt was knocked out by the provisions of T. N. Abt ,40 of 1979, which had the effect in law of restoring the respondent to the position which he occupied prior to the application of the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, In such an event, on the annulment of the statutory discharge, the respondent's right to recover even that portion of the debt was restored and as already seen that claim was also saved from the bar of limitation under S. 34 of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. Indeed, in thuveerappa Chetty v. Adaikappa Chetti, ILR (1920) Mad 845 : AIR 1920 Mad 663, it was held that the subsequent annulment or deprivation of satisfaction by payment by a decree of court would give the creditor a fresh cause of action against the debtor and time also began to run from the date of annulment. In the case on hand, the annulment of satisfaction has been brought about by statute, namely, the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. During the period when the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 were in force, the respondent could not have sued for the recovery of the entire amount, because, the statute, in the shape of Ss. 6 and 7 of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, stood in his way and statutorily discharged part of the debt. That was removed only by the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, by annulling the statutory discharge with reference to a part of the debt. That rendered the debtor liable for the repayment of the entire amount subject, of course, to the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. Looked at from the point of view of the provisions of T. N. Acts 40 of 1978 and 40 of 1979, the right to recover one half of the principal and one half of the interest thereon was restored to the respondent by the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979 and that claim was also preserved intact against the bar of limitation under S. 34 of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, so that right could be enforced without in any manner being affected by the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978. Precisely, that was done by the respondent by instituting the suits in O.s. 2627 and 2626 of 1981. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the maintainability of the suits by the respondent. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot, therefore, be accepted.

9. 'The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the.. suits instituted by the 'respondent for the recovery of the further amounts due from the petitioner would be hit by the provisions of 0. 2 R. 2 C. P. C., and, therefore, the respondent cannot sue for relief with reference to the portion of the claim. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would point.. out that having regard to the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, as they then stood, the respondent was not entitled to include the whole of the claim in his suit and there was no intentional relinquishment or omission to sue on the part of the respondent so as to disentitle him from recovering it subsequently on the coming into force of the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979. No doubt, under 0. 2 R. 2, C. P. C. normally, every suit - should Include the entirety of the claim, which a plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of a cause of action. The plaintiff may also relinquish a portion of his claim with a view to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the court. But, where a plaintiff omits to sue or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he will be thereafter precluded from suing in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. Likewise, a person entitled to more than one relief with reference to a cause of action, may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits without leave of court to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards be permitted to sue for the reliefs so omitted. At the time when the suits in 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978 were instituted, the respondent was not entitled to claim the whole of the amount from the petitioner because the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978 did not permit it. He was, therefore, not entitled to include the whole of the claim. Equally, there was no volitional omission on the part of the respondent to sue for one half of the amount and there was no intentional relinquishment either. As per the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1978, all that the respondent was entitled to- recover formed the subject matter of the suits 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978, and, therefore, it was not a case where the respondent was entitled to claim something more, but had actually claimed much less or had otherwise omitted to sue or even intentionally relinquished a portion of the claim attracting the provisions of 0. 2 R. 2 C. P. C. It may not be out of place to point out that the right in respect of which relief was prayed for by the respondent in 0. S. 2627 and 2626 of 1981, did not exist at the time of the institution of 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 19781, Under those circumstances, there is no question of the bar under 0. 2 R. 2 C. P. Id. operating against the respondent.

10. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suits were barred by limitation as the petitioner was an assessee under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act and, therefore, the benefit of the extended period of limitation cannot be availed of by the respondent. It is not in dispute that if the petitioner was not an assessee under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, then he would be entitled to the benefits of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, so as to enable the respondent to take advantage of S. 34 thereof, providing for exclusion of time for filing of suits as provided there under. No evidence at all had been placed by the petitioner in support of his claim that he is an assessee assessed to agricultural income-tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act. Indeed, in the course of the prior suits 0. S. 1910 and 1909 of 1978, the petitioner accepted the position that he was an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Ordinance V of 1978, subsequently replaced by T. N. Act 40 of 1978, and no dispute was ever raised by the petitioner that he was not an agriculturist. Even in the course of the proceedings before the court below, apart from merely pleading that he was not an agriculturist, the petitioner did not place any evidence in support of such a plea. In the absence, therefore, of any material to substantiate his claim that the petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of - Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-.tax Act, he cannot be leard to contend that he is not a debtor within the meaning of the provisions of T. N. Act 40 of 1979, and, therefore, the claim against the petitioner would be barred by limitation. There is no dispute that if the petitioner is not established tobe an assessee under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, then the respondent is entitled to claim the benefits of the extended period of limitation taking into account the provisions of T. N. Acts 10 of 1975, 40 of 1978 and S. 34 of T. N.Act 40 of 1979, in which event, the suits instituted on 18-11-1981, would be doubtless well within time. Thus, the plea that the suits are barred has absolutely no substance. No other point was urged. justifiable Consequently,, the civil revision petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. One set.

11. Revisions dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //