COMMON JUDGMENT:The appellant in both appeals is the defendant in both the suits. The respondent in A.S. No.209 of 1987 is the wife of the respondent in A.S. No.880 of 1986. 2. Two suits were filed against the appellant for recovery of money due on promissory notes. Against the decree in O.S. No.4 of 1979, A.S. No.880 of 1986 has been filed. Against the decree in O.S. No.584 of 1979, A.S. No.209 of 1987 has been filed. The promissory notes in O.S. No.4 of 1979 were dated 10.2.1974 and 9.10.1974. The suit was filed on 2.1.1979 by the respondent seeking the right to exclude the period during which he was prevented from filing the suit by virtue of the various Debt Relief Acts. The promissory notes in O.S. No.584 of 1979 were dated 25.5.1975 and 19.9.1976. The suit was filed on 11.9.1979 by the respondent seeking exclusion of the period during which the suit was barred by the aforesaid acts. The respondents claimed that they believed in good faith that the appellant was entitled to the benefits of those Acts. 3. The respondent denied the execution of the promissory note and the consideration and denied that he was an ‘indebted person’ or an ‘agriculturist’ under The Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act of 10 of 1975, The Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 15 of 1976, The Tamil Nadu Indebted Persons (Temporary Relief) Act 16 of 1976 as extended by Act of 1977. He was assessed to property tax and also to Sales Tax and therefore, the exclusion of time for filing the suit did not apply to his case. Subsequently, he filed an additional written statement claiming the benefits of The Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980 and that he is a ‘debtor’ under The (Tamil Nadu) Agriculturists Relief Act, Act 4 of 1938, The Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 38 of 1972, Ordinance 5 of 1978 and Act 40 of 1973 and prayed for discharge of the debts. 4. The trial Court held that the promissory notes were proved and summarily decided the issue of exclusion of time on the ground that the appellant himself had admitted that he was a debtor. So, these two appeals have been filed. 5. 4. The trial Court held that the promissory notes were proved and summarily decided the issue of exclusion of time on the ground that the appellant himself had admitted that he was a debtor. So, these two appeals have been filed. 5. Mrs.Beulah Rajakumari, learned counsel for the appellant in both appeals would submit that the suits were clearly barred by limitation, the trial Court failed to consider the evidence before it and on a misconstruction of the additional written statement, had come to the conclusion that the appellant had admitted that he was a debtor. According to the learned counsel, there was no such admission and even if the respondent prays for exclusion of time to avoid the effect of limitation, it is the duty of the Court to see whether the grounds on which he claims such exclusion were established. A mere statement that the appellant is proved to be a debtor without any judicial application of mind will not be correct. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the trial Court had correctly held that the suit was in time. He would further submit that there was no error in the approach of the trial Court finding that after having borrowed a sum of money, the appellant had deliberately and fraudulently pleaded that he had not borrowed any money and relief on the judgment reported in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) By L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 853. On this score alone the suits should be dismissed. It was also submitted that when a person pleads that he is not a debtor, he must prove the same. Learned counsel further submits that the approach of the trial Court was correct and that the judgment and decree of the trial Court have to be confirmed. 6. In the Full Bench of this Court Manimekalai Ammal and others v. Swamidurai Padayatchi and others, (2001)2 M.L.J. 826 (F.B.), the Full Bench of this Court has held has held that the period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of dues covered by Act 40 of 1979 commencing from 15.1.1976 to 13.6.1979 and the total period excluded by moratorium imposed by various provisions of these acts was 4 years, 4 months and 27 days. Several enactments are intended to give temporary relief for agriculturists and to indebted persons, taking into account the circumstances prevailing during a particular period. Exclusion of limitation merely suspends the right of the creditor to invoke the legal process for recovery of the same so that the person entitled to the relief get a breathing time for repayment of the debt. To apply the Debt Relief Acts, the Court should be satisfied that the appellant is the ‘debtor’ within the meaning of those Acts wherein provision has been made for exclusion of time. The following para in the two suits deal with the issue of limitation: A.S. No.888 of 1986 (O.S. No.4 of 1979): “The plaintiff’s suit is in time by reason of the provisions of the aforesaid Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinances and Acts and the Tamil Nadu Indebted Persons (Temporary Relief) Ordinances and Acts which prohibited the filing of the suit against him and directed the exclusion of the time during which they were in force in the computation of limitation as the defendant is a person entitled to the benefits of these ordinances and enactments and as the plaintiff is refrained from instituting the suit, believing in good faith that the provisions of the statute and prohibition contained in the above mentioned ordinances and acts applied to it.” A.S. No.209 of 1987 (O.S. No.584 of 1979): In the computation of limitation for the promissory note ‘A’, the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period of stay 15.1.1976 to 15.7.1978 under Tamil Nadu Acts 10 of 1975, 15 of 1976, 16 of 1976 as extended by Acts of 1977 inasmuch as the defendant was a debtor entitled to the benefits of these enactments and as the plaintiff bona fide believed that he was so entitled and refrained from suing.“ 7. Act 10 of 1975 is intended to provide temporary relief to indebted agriculturists. Section 5 deals with the exclusion of time for limitation. Sec.3 deals with bar of suits for one year from the date of commencement of the Act. Act 10 of 1975 is intended to provide temporary relief to indebted agriculturists. Section 5 deals with the exclusion of time for limitation. Sec.3 deals with bar of suits for one year from the date of commencement of the Act. Sec.3 reads thus: ”No suit for recovery of a debt shall be instituted, no application for the execution of a decree for payment of money passed in a suit for the recovery of a debt shall be made, and no suit or application for the eviction of tenant on the ground of non-payment of a debt shall be instituted or made, against any agriculturist in my civil or revenue Court before the expiry of a year from the date of the commencement of this Act.“ Sec.5 deals with the manner in which the period of limitation should be computed for filing the suit for recovery of a debt or for executing a decree passed in such suit. 8. Sec.5(2) reads thus: ”Wherein a suit or an application in which the question of exclusion of time under Sub-sec.(1) arises, the defendant with respect to whom the question is raised, would have been an agriculturist but for the act that in the year 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 or 1974-75 he has been assessed to income tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or to agricultural income-tax under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, or sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, it shall be conclusively presumed that, in refraining from instituting the suit or making the application, the creditor believed in good faith that such defendant or respondent was an agriculturist". 9. Act 15 of 1976 is also intended to provide temporary relief to indebted agriculturists. Sec.3 is almost identical to the one extracted above and it bars the suits for a period of one year on the date of the Act. Sec.5 is almost identical to the one above. In Act 16 of 1976, Sec.4 deals with bar of suits and Sec.6 with exclusion of time. 10. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant had admitted that he is a debtor. The written statements filed in both the suits do not reveal any such admission. Sec.5 is almost identical to the one above. In Act 16 of 1976, Sec.4 deals with bar of suits and Sec.6 with exclusion of time. 10. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant had admitted that he is a debtor. The written statements filed in both the suits do not reveal any such admission. In the additional written statement he has merely stated that he is a debtor under the The Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980, 38 of 1972, Ordinance 5 of 1978 and Act 40 of 1978 and had prayed for dismissal of the suits. The appellant marked Exs.B-2 and B-3 to show that he is not entitled to benefits of Acts 10 of 1975, 15 of 1976 and 16 of 1976. Ex.B-2 is a communication dated 16.10.1980 sent by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vandavasi to the appellant/ defendant to pay the tax arrears for the year 1974-75. Ex.B-3 is the proceedings of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vandavasi dated 6.1.1978 in which it is seen that the tax was revised and refixed for the year 1974-75. The taxable turnover was fixed at Rs.3,71,498 assessable at 3% under Sec.4 of the TNGST Act, 1939. These two documents were marked through P.W.4, the Assessment Officer in the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Office, Vandavasi. In the pleadings, the appellant had stated that he was assessed to sales tax, professional tax and property tax and he is not a debtor as per Act. Curiously the trial Court accepts these exhibits to hold that the appellant is not a ‘debtor’ under the Act 13 of 1980, 38 of 1972, Ordinance 5 of 1978 or Act 40 of 1978, but totally ignores them while giving a finding that he is a debtor under the Act 10 of 1975, 15 of 1976 and 16 of 1976. 11. In Gomathi Ammal v. S.Senthattia Pillai, (1988)2 M.L.J. 117, the defendant pleaded that he is not an agriculturist since he has been assessed to income tax. He had marked a certificate issued by Agricultural Income Tax Officer showing that he was assessed to agricultural income tax. The learned Judge held that the certificate, though marked, has not been duly proved by examining the officer who issued the certificate and therefore, the certificate is no substitute for the production of assessment orders. 12. He had marked a certificate issued by Agricultural Income Tax Officer showing that he was assessed to agricultural income tax. The learned Judge held that the certificate, though marked, has not been duly proved by examining the officer who issued the certificate and therefore, the certificate is no substitute for the production of assessment orders. 12. In the present case, the certificate of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was produced and also the order directing the appellant to pay the arrears of sales tax for the assessment year 1974-75. When the appellant has shown that he has been assessed to sales tax for the relevant years, the respondent is not entitled to the presumption that he refrained from filing the suit because he believed in good faith that the appellant was an agriculturist entitled to the benefit of Act 10 of 1975 or 15 of 1976. 13. As per Sec.2(6) of the Act 10 of 1975, the word ‘agriculturist’ will not include any person who was assessed to sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959)... in any of the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-1974. The word "Agriculturist" in the Act 15 of 1976 has the same meaning as above, but the assessment year 1974-75 is also taken into account. Further under Act 16 of 1976, as per Sec.2(ii) a person will not be an indebted person’ if he has been assessed to Sales Tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act for the financial years ending on 31.3.1974 and 31.3.1975. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant had produced materials before the Court to show that he is neither an ‘agriculturist’ nor an ‘indebted’ person, since he has been assessed to Sales Tax. Therefore, the conclusion of the trail Court that the respondent can take advantage of the provisions to exclude time under these relief enactments, is wrong. The finding of the trial Court in this regard is extracted below: The trial Court failed to see that Exs.B-1 and B-2 would show that the respondent is not entitled to exclude the time and if the time is not excluded, the suits are barred by limitation. 14. Even as regards the question as to whether the appellant is an agriculturist, the evidence is inadequate. It is seen from the documents filed that the appellant is doing groundnut business. 14. Even as regards the question as to whether the appellant is an agriculturist, the evidence is inadequate. It is seen from the documents filed that the appellant is doing groundnut business. The appellant in A.S. No.209 of 1987 is the brother of the respondent in A.S. No.880 of 1986 whose evidence is that: Ex.A-1 is dated 10.2.1974. Ex.A-2 is dated 9.10.1974. In A.S. No.880 of 1986 the evidence of P.W.2, who claims to have been a witness had stated that Ex.A-2, Ex.A-1 He has clearly stated that But he personally does not know about it. He does not remember the month of Ex.A-1 P.W.4, who claims to be the scribe had stated that Exs.A-1 and A-2 Whereas P.W.1 himself says that Exs.A-1 and A-2 The suits are barred by limitation. The evidence even with regard to the execution is totally unreliable. So the question of fraud, vehemently pleaded by the respondent does not arise. The respondent has not proved that he believed in good faith that the appellant is entitled to the benefits of the aforementioned relief enactments. On the other hand, the appellant has shown by marking Exs.B-2 and B-3 that he is neither an ‘agriculturist’ or ‘indebted person’ within the meaning of the Acts since he has been assessed to Sales Tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The judgment and decree in both the suits necessarily have to be set aside. 15. In the result, these appeals are allowed. No costs. Learned counsel for respondent submits that it is a legal Aid case and his fees may be accordingly fixed.