LAKSHMI ANIMAL Vs. SUNDARAMURTHI CBETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants is O.S, No. 890 of 1978 on the file of the Distrist Munsif of Tiruvannamalai, are the petitioners in this revision. THE respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. THE defendants are the legal representatives one Natesa Gounder, who is no more. THE first defendant is his widow defendants 2 and 3 are his sons and defendants 4 and 5 are his daughters THE said Natesa Gounder executed a promissory note on 19th August, 1975 in favour of the plaintiff. After his death, the suit was said by the plaintiff for recovery of the amounts due under the promissory note. In the present revision we are only concerned with the defence of the defendants that they are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, XIII of 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Act. THE First Court contenanced the plea of the defendants that they are entitled to the benefits of the Act and dismissed the suit as having abated, but without costs. THE plaintiff filed an appeal, AS. No. 21 of 1981 which was heard and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvannamalai, and the appellate court came to a different conclusion and held that the defendants could not claim the benefits of the Act and in this view, reversed the judgment and decree of the first court and decreed the suit as prayed for with casts throughout. That is how this revision has come to be preferred by the defendants.

(2.) MR. R.S. Vankatachari, learned connsel for the defendants, submits that two reasonings weigned with the appellate court and they are no} tenable in law and expatiating his submissions, iearned counsel solicits interference in revision. The first reasoning is that the benefits of the Act could be availed of only by the original debtor, viz., Natesa Gounder, and Dot by the defendarnts, who are his legal representatives. Section 3 (c) of the Act defines debt as follows:

(3.) THERE is no scope for limiting the applicability of the provisions of the Act only to the person, who was the original debtor. If the liability could be fastened on the legal representatives of the original debtor, they could definitely come within the ambit of the Act, Case law under the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act, IV of 1938, is clear and it has recognised that the said Act was not confined to personal lliability but also to liability of a person by virtue of his possession of property "Judgment-debtor" within the meaning of the Act will also include his legal representatives and assigns. So far as the Act is concerned, the meaning sattached to .debt. and debtor are wide enough to take in even legal representatives of the original debtor, provided the liability is burdened on such legal representatives. In this view it is not possible to sustain the first line og reasoning advanced by the appellate court to negative the pleas of the defendants