SAVITHRI AMMA SEETHAMMA Vs. VELAYUDHAN BHARGAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the Order Ext. P4 dated 9th October 1979 passed by the Tribunal, the Tahsildar, constituted under the Kerala Debt Relief Act, 1977 (Act 17 of 1977), hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and the appellate order there from, Ext. P5 dated 14th July 1980, whereunder the application filed claiming benefits of S.4 of the Act stood dismissed.

(2.) The facts are short and are as follows: - The petitioner executed a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 300 on 16th January 1959 in favour of the 1st respondent. A further loan was raised on the above security for Rs. 300 on 24th May 1975. The redumption of mortgage was sought by filing a suit O.S. No. 360 of 1976 on 20th March 1976. The suit was decreed on 26th September 1977, Ext. P1 being the judgment and Ext. P2 the decree. Under Ext. P1 it was found by the civil court that the petitioner was a debtor under the Act on a consideration of issue No. 4, which related to the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to the benefits of Ordinance 1 of 1977, which was replaced by Act 17 of 1977. The civil court entered a definite and positive finding that the petitioner was a debtor and was entitled to avail of the benefits of the Act. However, the civil court felt that having regard to the provisions of S.4 of the Act, the party has to move the Tribunal constituted under the Act for having a reconveyance of the property. This the petitioner attempted by filing an application before the 2nd respondent. This application was disposed of by a cryptic order Ext. P4 under which the petition was rejected by the Tahsildar - Tribunal by referring to the enquiries made to the village officer and the deposition of the counter petitioner, which according to the tribunal showed that the annual income of the debtor is more than Rs. 3,000. The basis of the report of the village officer or the particulars of the deposition of the counter petitioner are not even shadowed in Ext. P4. This unsatisfactory feature of the disposal of the application under the Act is perhaps understandable in the background of the lack of experience of the Tahsildar entrusted with the adjudication of claims which involve interpretation of the legal provisions and judicial approach to the questions.

(3.) The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority, the 3rd respondent. The order gives particulars of the reasoning of the appellate authority in support of its conclusion. It is evident that while considering the question whether the petitioner was a debtor under the Act, the appellate authority attempted an aggregation of the income of all the members of the petitioner's family. He noted that the petitioner has only an income of Rs. 240. The fact that the petitioner's husband, a pensioner, was in receipt of pension of Rs. 1,032 per annum was also noted by the appellate authority. He further entered on the speculation that the two unmarried employed sons of the appellant "should be earning an annual income of at least Rs. 7,200". On making an aggregation of the income of all the family members the appellate authority concluded that the family income "cannot be anything less than Rs. 8,000 per annum". In that view of the matter the rejection of the application by the Tribunal was affirmed by the appellate authority.