Govindan Pillai Janardhanan Pillai vs Padmanabha Pillai Neelakandan Pillai

Vithayathil, J.—The 78th counter-Petitioner in D.R.P. No. 3 of 1118 of the Mavelikkara District Court is the revision Petitioner in C.R.P. No. 432/51. The 106th counter-Petitioner who is the legal representative of the deceased 18th counter-Petitioner is the revision Petitioner in C.R.P. No. 475/51. The petition in the court below was one u/s 16, Travancore Debt Relief Act, for settlement of the debts of the Petitioner and the order from which the revision petitions are filed is one passed u/s 19 of that Act settling the liabilities of the debtor. The court below deputed three commissioners to assess the value of the assets of the debtor and Ex. A is their report. According to that report the assets of the Petitioner are worth Rs. 67,776/-. According to Section 19(a) of the Act, one-fourth of the entire asset not exceeding Rs. 3000 in value has to be allotted to the debtor. Accordingly the court below allotted items 14 to 20, 27 and 43 in D schedule in Ex. A to the debtor. According to Ex. A those properties are worth Rs. 3,905/-. Although some of the counter-Petitioners contended that these properties are worth more than Rs. 3000/- and that the debtor was entitled only to Rs. 3000 no evidence was adduced by any of them to show that the value given in Ex. A. is incorrect.

The main points urged in these revision petitions are that the court below has gone wrong in allotting items 14 to 20, 27 and 43 in D schedule to the debtor, that the debtor is entitled only to Rs. 3000 and that he is not entitled to get possession of the properties until all his liabilities are settled and the creditors are satisfied. With regard to the value of the properties there is no reason, why the report Ex. A should not be accepted. No attempt was made by the counter-Petitioners in the court below to show that the report is incorrect and there is no ground for interference in revision on this question of fact. But the court below seems to have proceeded on the basis that items 14 to 20 and 27 and 43 in D schedule are worth only Rs. 3000 according to Ex. A. These properties are really worth Rs. 3905 according to the valuation given in Ex. A. But the Petitioner has stated in a statement filed by him on 11-1-1951 that items 14 to 20 are subject to a prior charge of Rs. 850. Nothing is said about this in the order of the court below, and there is no knowing whether there is such a charge on the properties. Even if that charge is taken into account there will still be excess amount of Rs. 55/-. Learned Counsel for the debtor submitted that the debtor is agreeable to deposit in court Rs. 905 for payment to the creditors according to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act as a condition precedent for obtaining delivery of items 14 to 20, 27 and 43 in D schedule which have been allotted to him by the court below. With regard to the contention that the debtor is entitled to get only Rs. 3000 and not properties worth that amount, the Travancore High Court held in C.R.P. No. 77 of 1123 that the debtor was entitled to get properties worth Rs. 3000. The words used in Section 19(a), are "one-fourth of the entire assets not exceeding Rs. 3000 in value."

It is, therefore, clear that the debtor is entitled to get properties not exceeding Rs. 3000 in value. The court below directed the receiver to surrender possession of the properties allotted to the debtor even, before the liabilities of the debtor were settled. This is clearly wrong as was held by the Travancore High Court in - ''Padmanabha Pillai v. Chacko'' 1943 TLR 1219 (A). In that case it was thus observed by Krishnaswami Iyer C.J.:

The allotment in favour of the debtor must come as part and parcel of the settlement of the liabilities of the debtor and not before. It was not the intention of the statute that before the liabilities are ascertained, before the court realises the assets and the entirety of them excepting the homestead in which the debtor lives, that the debtor should at all be entitled to claim for a partition and delivery of one-fourth share of the properties that he unconditionally leaves in the control of the court. It may be that pending the administration the debtor may be permitted to live in the homestead which he had placed in the control of the court. But the right of a debtor to the benefit of Clause (a) of Section 19 can come in only after the determination of the shares and amount of the claim u/s 18 and as part of the orders as to the settlement of the liabilities of the debtor u/s 19. The words in Section 19, ''The court shall then settle'' - mark the word ''then'' - ought not to be ignored.

The debtor can, therefore, be given the share allotted to him only when all his liabilities are settled and the creditors are given their respective shares u/s 19 of the Act. The direction of the court below that the receiver should forthwith surrender possession of the properties to the debtor is wrong. The order of the court below; is modified to the extent mentioned above and confirmed in other respects. The debtor will deposit in court Rs. 905 before obtaining delivery of possession of, the properties allotted to his share. He will be given possession of the properties only when his liabilities are settled and the creditors are given their respective shares.

The revision petitions are allowed to the above extent. There will be no order as to costs.