MANICKAM CHETTIAR Vs. RAMANATHA DEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in both the civil revision petitions is the decree holder in O.S. Nos.380 and 381 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Thiruthuraipoondi. THE respondent in both the revisions is the judgment-debtor in the suits.

(2.) . The short facts are, in both the suits, preliminary decree was passed on 22.11.1973 and final decree on 24.7.1974. The petitioner/decree-holder filed execution petitions for realising the decree amount together with interest by sale of the immovable property mentioned in the execution petitions. According to la Devar (AR.Lakshmanan, J.) 399 the petitioner, he bona fidely believed that Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturist (Temporary Relief) Act X of 1975 would operate as a bar to his execution petitions and hence he filed two execution petitions on 6.2.1990 and 15.2.1990 respectively. The time during which Sec.3 of Tamil Nadu Act X of 1975 operated as a bar shall be excluded as per Sec.5 of the said Act. The court below held that the execution petitions are out of time. It is against the said order, the above revisions have been filed by the decree holder.

(3.) KANGAN v. Kannammal, Second Appeal No. 1885 of 1982, dated 19.2.1996 by D.Raju, J. 6. The only point which arises for consideration in these two revision is: "Whether on a combined reading of Ordinance I of 1975, replaced by the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 10 of 1975, the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 15 of 1976, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act of 1977, the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Second Amendment) Act of 1977, the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act, 1978 and the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979, the institution of an execution petition is barred from 16.1.1975 to 14.6.1979 for a period of 4 years, 4 months and 27 days, and if this period is excluded, the execution petitions instituted by the petitioner herein are in time? 7. The point: In all the above cited judgments, the learned single Judges and also a Division Bench have taken the uniform view that the bar under Sec.33(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 will not operate and that the decree-holders are entitled to have the decree though under the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, a particular scheme of scaling down and discharge had been provided that had been totally abrogated, annulled and set at nought by the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, and that Secs.7(1) and (2), 8 and 31 to 36 of the latter Act show that excepting a case falling within Sec.33(2), the earlier proceedings taken under the 1978 Act would all abate and to every debt, the scaling down provisions of the 1979 Act have to be applied.