V. Shanmughavelayudham Pillai vs K.M.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar and Another

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.—The only question that arises for consideration in this civi miscellaneous second appeal is whether the decree debt

in O.S. No. 71 of 1929 on the file of the District Munsiff''s Court, Coimbatore, was discharged u/s 10, Sub-section (2), Clause (b) of the Madras

Debt Conciliation Act. Under the Act the debt would be discharged for failure on the part of the creditor to submit the statement of the debts

owed to him in compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) of Section 10 contemplates the issue of a notice and service

thereof calling upon every creditor to submit a statement of debts owed to him by the debtor with a view to effect a settlement. If after the receipt

of such notice the creditor fails to file the statement as required by Sub-section (1), under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) the debt shall be deemed

for all purposes and all occasions to have been duly discharged. The foundation, therefore, for the argument that the debt must be deemed to have

been discharged within the meaning of the section is the service of notice contemplated by Section 10(1) of the Act. In the present case the

concurrent finding of both the Courts below is that there is no evidence that a notice of the kind contemplated by Section 10(1) of the Act was

served or even issued to the decree-holder K.M.R. M. Ramanathan Chetriar. An attempt was made to connect a notice issued to one

Ramanathan Chettiar with different initials but that attempt signally failed. It was then urged that the decree-holder had notice of the filing of the

petition under the Debt Conciliation Act as there was an application to stay execution of the decree u/s 25 of the Act but that notice was merely a

notice of proceedings and not a notice calling upon the creditor to file a statement of the debts due to him from the debtor within the meaning of

Section 10(1) of the Act. It is not enough to prove that the creditor had knowledge of the proceedings under the Debt Conciliation Act. The

debtor must go further and prove the failure to comply with the requirements of the statute as laid down in Section 10(1). It is only then that the

penal consequence of discharging the debt u/s 10(2)(b) would follow. As the judgment-debtor had failed to establish the very first requirement of

the section the debt is not discharged.

The decision of the Court below is correct. The civil miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed with costs.

No leave.