C MUNUSWAMY Vs. SARADA COLLEGE EDUCATIONAL TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE interesting point that confronts this Court in this civil revision petition is whether the burden of proof lies on the person who seeks the benefits under the agrarian Act which contained itself agrarian reforms or on the person who raised a contention that the petitioner who seeks the benefits is not entitled to the said benefits of the agrarian enactments that had emanated from the floor of the State Legislature as a reform giving certain benefits to the indebted agriculturist and agricultural labourer and small farmer in the State. In this regard, it is relevant to note that Act XXXI of 1976 (Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976), contained a provision under section 12 regarding the burden of proof which was omitted by Tamil Nadu Act V of 1980. THErefore, it has become obligatory on the part of this Court now to observe about the burden of proof in a case where the respondent C. Munuswami claims benefit under Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1976 in his counter that he had filed with reference to R. E. P. No. 485 of 1979 in O. S. No. 115 of 1975, and subsequently filing another counter claiming benefits under the Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980. THE lower Court while passing an order on 28th November. 1980 in this matter, viz., R. E. P. No. 485 of 1979 in O. S. No. 115 of 1975. On the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, had observed that the respondent in R. E. P. No. 485 of 1979. viz, C. Munuswami cannot seek the benefit under either of these two enactments, and therefore, he has elected to claim the benefits only under Tamil Nadu Act XIII or 1980 by leading some evidence on this aspect and as such the entire evidence available on record so an as the appellant is concerned in this petition has to be looked into in that angle viz. whether C. Munuswami, the respondent in R. E. P. No. 485 of 1979 is entitled to the benefits under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980 or not.

(2.) THE petitioner Sri Sarada College Educational Trust represented by its Correspondent Yathiswari, Sarada College had let in evidence through its Correspondent's Personal Assistant, P. W. 1 B. Viswanathan, stating that the respondent, Munuswami, herein has been working as a building contractor and as a matter of fact he had been getting only an annual income of more than what is contemplated as the minimum under the provisions of the Act XIII of 1980 and as such the respondent Munuswami is not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980. He had been vehemently cross-examined on behalf of the respondent Munuswami. R. W. 2, Ramaswami was examined and as a matter of fact the respondent Munuswami himself has got into the box as R W. 1 and stated that he is getting an income which is less than the limit prescribed under provisions of Act X(II of 1980 viz., below Rs. 4,800 and as such he is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the enactment.

(3.) IT is also relevant in this connection to refer in this judgment with reference to the case law on the subject by both the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sundaralingam, and Mr. Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the respondent have been of a much enlightening bearing and it is but necessary that these decisions should also form part of this Order. Mr. Sundaralingam referred to the decision in Messrs. Muthukumara Pillai Son v. T.N.V. Nilakantha Chettiar1, wherein it was held that the burden of proof under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act is on the plaintiff that he has to prove that the defendents are assessed to income-tax and thereby deprive them of the benefits comtemplated under the said enactment. Mr. Sundaralingam also refers to the decision in Arumuga Nadar v. Kumara Pillai, represented by A. Rajagopal, Advocate2, for the proposition that so far as section 3 (2) of the Act IV of 1978 is concerned the aspect regarding the agricultural, agrarian or otherwise and the burden of proving the said aspect, is on the debtor.