V. Sethuraman, J.
1. The petitioner is the decree-holder. lie filed an execution petition for realisation of the amount due under the decree in A.S. No. 250 of 1978. The decree was as against two persons, who are brothers. In the course of the execution proceedings, they claimed that they were entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Act, XIII of 1980.
2. The petitioner contended before the Court below that the two brothers were having 1.53 acres of nanja lands with irrigation facilities from a tank and also from a, well on the land itself. The income from the land was, stated to be Rs. 7,000. They were also said to be otherwise earning a sum of Rs. 3,000. Thus the total income of both, the brothers was stated to be Rs. 10,000. The Karnam of the village was examined for the purpose of showing that the family had a substantial income from the land. He confirmed that the income from the land was Rs. 7,000.
3. The Court below, after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the income of each of the brothers would be Rs. 3,800 as against the limit of Rs. 4,800 prescribed for a debtor to get benefit under the Act XIII of 1980. The decree amount was thus held to be statutorily discharged. The present revision petition has been filed against the said order.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the two brothers constituted a family and that the income from the entire property should have to be taken and not merely on the basis of a notional partition between the brothers. The father died in 1974 leaving 3 sons, 3 daughters and his widow. On the death of the father, all of them were entitled to inherit the share of the father. As far as the brothers are concerned, they would be entitled to 1/3rd share in the property.. The word 'family' has been defined in Section 3(e) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act XIII of 1980, as follows:
Family in relation to a person means the individual, the wife or husband, as the case may be of such individual and their unmarried minor children.
There is an Explanation to Section 3(e), which is not material.
5. In the present case, the two brothers cannot be taken as members of the family in the light of the definition given above. With reference to each of the individuals, the earnings of the family will have to be considered. Considered in this light, the finding that the income of each of the brothers would be Rs. 3,800 cannot be said to be wrong. As the statute discharged the debt in such cases, the execution petition was rightly dismissed.
6. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.