NAGAMMAL Vs. ALAGUMANNA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the defendant. Nagammal against the judgment and decree, dated 19th August, 1981, in O. S. No. 2158 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional District munsif, Namakkal, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for and that the defendant is not entitled to any of the benefits of the Tamil nadu Debt Relief Act.

(2.) THE suit was instituted by the plaintiff Alagumanna chettiar, who is the respondent herein who is not represented today when this petition is heard. He has neither appeared in person nor made arrangements to make representations. THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner was heard. THE suit was on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 20th march, 1974 for Rs. 1,500 which is filed as Exhibit A-l in the suit. Exhibit a-2 is the registration copy of the mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of the Nallaperumal Chettiar. Apart from examining himself as P. W. 1. the plaintiff has examined P. W. 2 and 3 in support of his case, case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner submits that a debtor against whom a suit is instituted can claim the benefits under all these three enactments, namely, Act XXXI of 1976, Act XL of 1978 repealed by Act XL of 1979, as well as Act XIII of 1980. In the instant case, it is submitted that the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the revision petitioner, namely, certified copies of adangals as well as chitta extracts, would clearly show that the revision petitioner (defendant) owns only one acre 30 cents of land and as such, by no stretch of imagination, can it be argued that the said extent would fetch more than Rs. 4,800 annually. It is apposite to mention here that the case of the respondent-plaintiff is that apart from the land which the revision petitioner owns, she is also engaged in milk-vending business. According to the respondent, the said business of the petitioner yields an appreciable income which taken together with the income from the land, would exceed the sum of Rs. 4,800, the limit contemplated under section 3 of Act XIII of 1980. Apart from all this, though the revision-petitioner has claimed that she has obtained a certificate from the Tahsildar concerned that she is a small farmer, no such certificate has been produced by her by way of documentary evidence and as such, there was no adverse comment made by the lower Court in its order under revision. This aspect has also been the subject-matter of vehement argument before me by learned counsel for the revision petitioner. According to learned counsel the stand of the revision-petitioner is that apart from producing exhibits B-l to B-3, a poor farmer like petitioner who is an illiterate woman, cannot exert herself any more in order to prove her claim and that thereafter, the burden was shifted in to the respondent to prove contra. LEARNED counsel would also submit that if this Court is inclined to remand the matter with respect to this aspect of the case to find out whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of any one of the abovesaid enactments as claimed by her, it is also open to her to agitate further relating to the question of genuineness of otherwise of the promissory note, In other words, the submission is, the finding relating to passing of consideration under the suit promissory note must also be left open if this Court is to remit the matter.