AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raju, J.—The above writ petition was heard. This writ petition is to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent in F.D is,
DRA Ap. 18/83 dated 11-10-1983. The petitioner, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition claimed that the third respondent borrowed a
sum of Rs. 3000 from the petitioner by executing a mortgage by her and her daughters in the year 1965 and that to recover the money due under
the mortgage, O.S. No. 133 of 1969 was filed on the file of the District Munsif''s Court, Pattukkotai and that a decree was also passed thereon. It
is also claimed in the affidavit that execution proceedings are now pending. While the matters stood thus, the third respondent filed an application
before the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 and the second respondent by his order dated 28-3-1983 while sustaining
the claim of the third respondent ordered discharges of the mortgage debt and directed the return of all the documents. Or appeal by the writ
petitioner before the first respondent, the appellate authority also by an order dated 11-10-1983 concurred with the second respondent and
rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petition has been filed.
Mr. G. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the second respondent and the first respondent have no
jurisdiction under the Act to order discharge of a debt which fructified into a decree by a competent civil Court. The learned counsel placed
reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in K.V.S.P. Subramanian Chettiar v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Arantangi 95
L.W. 466:1982-II-M.L.J. 375 and there can be no serious controversy over the claim, for, the decision relied upon squarely support the plea
raised on behalf of the petitioner. The Division Bench has held that in matters like this when the proceedings are pending in a civil Court or have
been concluded resulting in a decree claims for benefits, under the Debt Relief Act like Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 could and ought to be
projected only before the civil Court at the appropriate stage and that the Tahsildar functioning under the precisions of the Act has no jurisdiction
or authority to order for the discharge of the debt in such circumstances. In consequence by applying the ratio of the decision referred to above,
the impugned orders are hereby quashed. The order passed in his writ, petition shall not stand in the way of the debtor as indicated already
projecting his claims before the civil Court at the appropriate stage for benefits under the Debt Relief Act. The writ petition is allowed as indicated
above. No costs.