M. ABDUL AZIZ Vs. YASODAMMAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this civil miscellaneous second appeal is whether decree debt, which arose under a chit transaction, is a debt as defined under Sec. 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act XXXVIII of 1972. The judgment -debtor filed an application under Sec. 16 of the said Act for stay of the execution proceedings. The Courts below, holding that the decree amount is not a debt as defined in the above said provision, dismissed the petition. The Courts below relied upon a decision of Suryamurthy J., in Aruriagiri Chit Fund v/s. Mohammed Hanafi, 89 L.W. 687 for coming to the above conclusion. That was a case under Act XV of 1976 and Act XVI of 1976. The definition of the word debt in Act. XV of 1976 is not similar to that in Act XXXVIII of 1972. But the debt in Act XVI of 1976 is almost similar to the definition contained in Act XXXVIII of 1972.

(2.) The definition in Act XXXVIII of 1972 is as follows:

(3.) Suryamurthy J., referred to a Bench decision of this Court reported in Raghavan v/s. Arumugham : A.I.R. 1935 Mad.385, and held that the liability arising out of a chit transaction is not a debt as defined in Acts XV and XVI for 1976, The Bench decision referred to by the learned Judge only holds that a chit fund transaction is different from loan transaction and that it is not a case of borrowing. Even this view of the said Bench has been dissented to by another Bench of this Court in Sri Visalam Chit Funds v/s. Srinivasa Mudaliar 88 L.W. 415, 418. Even otherwise, as I said, in the earlier Bench decision, the question was whether under a chit transaction there was borrowing or not.