GURUSWAMY Vs. THAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no dispute that the appellant is having only 4.68 acres of agricultural land, which is the subject matter of the mortgages under Exs. A-1 and A-2. The plea of the appellant that he was entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 was rejected by the Courts below on the ground that the said property was worth Rs.30,000.00as evidenced by Ex.A-7, issued by the Head Quarters Deputy Tahsildar, Sriviliputher.

(2.) The contention of the appellant that the said certificate should not be accepted and the certificates produced by him, viz. Exs.-B-1 and B-2 should be accepted is erroneous and it has to be rejected. The Courts below being the Court of facts have accepted Ex.A-7. There is no justification to interfere with the same.

(3.) However, the appellant is well-founded in contending that under Clause (v) of the proviso to Sec. 3 (d) of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980, he is a "debtor" within the meaning of the Act. The Courts below have negatived the contention on the footing that Clause (vii) of the proviso will apply as the property is valued at Rs.30,000.00 by the Head-quarters Deputy Tahsildar. Clause (vii) will apply only when the appellant holds both agricultural lands and other immovable properties, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Kothandaraman Vs. Sub-Collector, Mettur (1983)) 1 MLJ Page 170). The Division Bench has categorically found that a person who holds only agricultural lands will fall under Clause (v) and he cannot be considered under Clause (vii) of the Proviso. In this case, the appellant does not have any property other than agricultural lands. Hence, he cannot fall under clause (vii) and consequently, the appellant will be a "debtor" within the meaning of Clause (v) of the proviso.