Thirumani vs Narayana Padayachi

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.

The plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit on a promissory note. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the suit

promissory note was note a genuine one and he, being an agriculturist, is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. Having accepted the plea of the

plaintiff, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by this judgment, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which

in turn, allowed the appeal by dismissing the suit.

Though the lower appellate Court accepted the plea of the plaintiff that the suit promissory not was a genuine one, it gave a finding on the basis

of Ex.B.12 to Ex.B.17 that the defendant owns properties only worth about Rs. 13,000 which are less than Rs. 25,000, the amount prescribed

under the Act 13 of 1980 and hence, the respondent herein is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. This is challenged by the plaintiff/appellant

herein.

The counsel for the appellant would press into service the following contentions:-

The defendant is not entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 because the trial Court gave a finding that the annual income of the defendant comes

to Rs. 8,000, which is more than the prescribed limit of Rs. 4,800 per annum. The finding given by the trial Court with reference to this aspect has

not been disturbed by the lower appellate Court. Secondly, the lower appellate Court merely on the basis of the Tahsildar''s certificate which is not

admittedly marked before the lower appellate Court, though the pattas were marked as Exs.B.12 to B.17, had arrived at a conclusion that the total

value of the properties owned by the defendant was only Rs.13,000 as per the certificate of the Tahsildar, and as such, the value of defendant''s

property would be less than Rs. 25,000 which is prescribed limit as per the Act 13 of 1980.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit in support and justification of the judgment and decree passed by the

lower appellate Court.

I heard both appearing for the parties.

The point for consideration in this second appeal is, whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the respondent is a ''debtor'' within the

meaning of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980 is correct.

The word ''debtor'' is defined u/s 3(d) of the Act. ""Debtor"" means any person from whom any debt is due and whose annual household income

does not exceed four thousand and eight hundred rupees. Under proviso, it is mentioned that a person shall not be deemed to be a debtor, if he

owns the agricultural lands and other immovable property, the market value of both such agricultural lands and other immovable property exceeds

twenty-five thousand rupees.

On consideration of the materials placed before the trial Court, learned Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur, in O.S.No. 1420 of 1980 found

that the defendant''s annual income is Rs. 8,000 which exceeds the amount of Rs. 4,800 as mentioned in the definition Section 3.

The lower appellate Court only on the basis of the Tahsildar''s Certificate which was not marked before the lower appellate Court, though the

other documents were allowed to be marked as additional documents, has come to the conclusion that the defendant/respondent is entitled to the

benefits of Act 13 of 1980, in view of the fact that the value of his landed properties is worth about Rs. 13,000 which is less than Rs. 25,000 as

prescribed by the Act 13 of 1980.

The reading of the judgment of the lower appellate Court would clearly show that the lower appellate Court has completely overlooked the

definition of the word ''debtor'' as defined under the Act 13 of 1980 and allowed itself to be misled by the proviso to Section 3 .

The question of value of the immovable properties, according to the section and proviso, would arise only if the respondent/defendant has first

proved that his annual income was below Rs. 4,800. In fact, the finding given by the trial Court with reference to the annual income, namely, Rs.

8,000 has not been discussed nor disturbed by the lower appellate Court. Thus, the lower appellate Court has committed a serious illegality in

allowing the appeal filed by the defendant without understanding the meaning of the section. In my view, the judgment of the lower appellate Court

suffers from perversity and total non-application of mind, which is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and the suit is decreed as

prayed for. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to order costs throughout.