P. SRINIVASA THEVAR Vs. S. RAJAM IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S. No. 300 of 1970 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thiruthuraipoondi, is the petitioner. The respondent herein, is the plaintiff in that suit. The defendant filed an application E.A. 96 of 1974 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1938 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act VIII of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to stay the execution proceedings in the above suit on the ground that he is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the above Act. The plaintiff contested the application on the main ground that the defendant has been assessed to property tax and he will be hit by the proviso C to S.3(ii) of the Act in that he has been assessed to property tax on the aggregate annual rental value of Rs. 1200 per year. It is found on the basis of the kist receipts produced by the defendant and which was not disputed by the plaintiff that the defendant is an agriculturist. The attempt to bring the defendant within the mischief of the proviso referred to above, has been sustained by the first court and the petition filed by the defendant was dismissed. It must be pointed out that the District Munsif took into consideration the records from the house tax demand register relating to the defendant. The defendant filed an appeal C.M.A. No. 29 of 1974 which was heard and disposed of by the District Judge, East Tanjore at Nagapattinam by judgment and decree dated 5th November 1974. The appellate court concurred with the first court and dismissed the appeal. The present revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the appellate court.

(2.) Sri. R.N. Kothandaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that out of the two grounds put against the defendant by the appellate court, the second ground rests purely on technical basis in that the appellate court has chosen to discountenance the petition filed by the defendant on the ground that instead of quoting S.20 of the Act, S.19 of the Act is quoted. I have looked into the original petition filed in E.A. No. 96 of 1974 and I find that the prayer is one for stay though the provision quoted is S.19. This is an omission to quote the correct provision, but the prayer is clear, and hence, the petition must be construed as one under S.20 of the Act. No such difficulty was experienced by the first court and it dealt with the application only as one under S.29 of the Act.

(3.) Sri Kothandaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner, would further contend that the records from the house tax demand register which have been marked in the appellate court as Exs.C. and C.2 do not make out that the aggregate annual rent of such property is not less than Rs. 1200. Ex. C.1 which appears to be an extract from the house tax demand register, relates to the years 1970 -71 and 1971 -72. The actual house tax levied is Rs. 20 and there is no column relating to annual value or annual rental value. Ex.C2 relates to the years 1970 -71, 1971 -72 and 1972 -73. The taxes for these years are indicated. With reference to annual rental value I find that it varies for the different years between Rs. 180 to Rs. 600. They relate to four door Nos. viz -2 -A, 2 -B, 2 -C and 2 -D. For 2 -A, the annual rental value is shown at Rs. 270; for 2 -B the annual rental value is shown at Rs. 280; for 2 -C for the year 1970 -71, the annual rental value is shown at Rs. 420; for the very same premises 2 -C for the years 1971 -72 and 1972 -73, the annual rental value is shown at Rs. 600 and for 2 -D for the year 1972 -73, the annual rental value is shown at Rs. 180. This document Ex. C.2 cannot be said to be an extract from the house tax demand register as presumed by the courts below and I find, it is in the form of a certificate issued by the Thiruthuraipoondi Panchayat, d. 27th March 1973.