KANNU KONAR Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THIRUVANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims that third respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,500 on 20th March, 1971, and executed a registered mortgage deed in his favour hypothecating the properties situate in Pavithram Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk. Again on 2nd February, 1975, the third respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 700 and executed a promissory note. Thus, in all a sum of Rs. 2,200 having been borrowed under the aforesaid two transactions and when third respondent had not paid any amounts in discharge of the debts, he the third respondent filed application F.D.R. No. 3 of 1978 before the second respondent claiming relief under Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1976 for wiping off the entire debt on the ground that he is a small farmer. A counter-statement was filed by the petitioner and in spite of the petitioner claiming that third respondent was raising wet crops and there is a well situate in the lands and the net annual income from the lands will be not less than Rs. 4,000 per year, second respondent held that there are no sufficient materials to accept the claim of the petitioner and hence allowed the application of the third respondent.

(2.) ON appeal, first respondent confirmed it by order, dated 7th November, 1978, without taking into consideration any of the materials placed by the petitioner herein. Aggrieved against the said orders, the writ petition was filed.

(3.) THE foremost point taken now is that, consequent to Tamil Nadu Act III of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as Act), having been passed resulting in amendment of Act XXXI of 1976, the orders passed, can no longer be enforced and that it is for the third respondent to now establish the claim under the amended provisions of the Act.