Skip to content


M. Neelamega Nadar Vs. the Special Tahsildar (D.R.), Usilampatti Division and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1983)2MLJ239
AppellantM. Neelamega Nadar
RespondentThe Special Tahsildar (D.R.), Usilampatti Division and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....of the act and the entire debt has been wiped out. it is as against these orders, the appellant filed the writ petition with the prayer which we have set out above.3. the learned single judge of our high court has held that the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 are correct and that the act is applicable to the third respondent. it is as against that order of the learned single judge, the present writ appeal has been filed.4. mr. ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to our notice the provision in section 12(h)(i) of the tamil nadu debts relief act, xiii of 1980 which runs as follows:12. certain debts and liabilities not to be affected.--nothing in this act shall apply to the following categories of debts and liabilities of a debtor, namely: (ii) (i) any.....
Judgment:

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.

1. The appellant-filed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari filed mandamus calling for the records of the proceedings dated 31st August, 1981 in D.R.A. No. 25|81NKT on the file of the Special Tahsildar (D.R.) Usilampatti Division, as affirmed by the proceedings dated 24th May, 1982 in N.L. No. 17554 of 1981, on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Appellate Authority (D.R.), and to quash the same.

2. The third respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,000 from the appellant on the hypothecation of 10 cents of land belonging to her Subsequent to the said borrowing, she agreed to sell the land to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 3,500. White the matter stood thus, the third respondent filed an application under1 the Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980, before the first respondent alleging that the debt due to the appellant has been wiped out as per the provisions of the Act. Respondents 1 and 2 have held that the third respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Act and the entire debt has been wiped out. It is as against these orders, the appellant filed the writ petition with the prayer which we have set out above.

3. The learned Single Judge of our High Court has held that the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 are correct and that the Act is applicable to the third respondent. It is as against that order of the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed.

4. Mr. Ramanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant brought to our notice the provision in Section 12(H)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Debts Relief Act, XIII of 1980 which runs as follows:

12. Certain debts and liabilities not to be affected.--Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following categories of debts and liabilities of a debtor, namely: (ii) (i) any debt which represents the price of property whether movable or immovable purchased by a debtor or any amount due under a hire purchase agreement.

An agreement to sell the very same property to the creditor will not attract the abovesaid provision. It cannot be said that the debt in question represents the price of property agreed to be sold. The debt is independent of the bare agreement to sell, as correctly observed by the learned single Judge.

5. In these circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //