LexM.N. ABDUL PAWOOF versus PICHAMUTHU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M.N. ABDUL PAWOOF v PICHAMUTHU AND ORS. FEBRUARY 10, 2000 [B.N. KIRPAL AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.J Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1979: Section 3(3)-Proviso. Expression ?lfot less than Rs. 1200"-Scope and meaning of A B c Debto1~Who is-Respondents executed a usufrnctury mortgage in favour of appellant-Annual rental value of the property Rs. 1200--Respondent's application for claim as debtor within the meaning of the Act-Dismissal by Trial Cow~Trial Court order affinned by First Appellate Court--On second appeal High Court held the respondents were debtors within the meaning of Section 3(3) of the Act-lt came to the conclusion that D the annual rental value of Rs. 1200 was not enough to deprive them of the benefit of being regarded as debtors-Appeal before Supreme Cowt-Held if the annual rental value of the property which is owned by a debtor is not less than Rs. 1200 then he would be covered under sub-section (iii) of proviso to Section 3(3j and he would not be deemed to be a debtoJ--Not less than 1200 E means that the minimum aggregate annual rental value should be at least 1200 if the aggregate re11tal value was less than 1200 only then the re~pondents would have been regarded as not being covered by the proviso to Section 3( 3 )-The High Court erred in arriving at the conclusion that even though the annual relltal value was Rs. 1200 the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the said proviso and would be regarded as debtors within the meaning of F that Act. Raja Kulkarni & Ors. v. State of Bombay, [1954) SCR 384; K.P. Varghese v.J.T.O. &Anr., [1981] 4SCC173;Karnail Singh & Ors. v.Darshan Singh & Ors., [1995) Supp. 1 SCC 760; The Pioneer Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. The G Municipal Council, Nagarcoil, [1961] 3 SCR 609; C.l. T. Calcutta v. Mis. Braithwaita & Co. Led., [1993) 2 SCC 262 and Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Sernrities Ltd., [1999) 3 SCC 1, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2761 of 1989. II 761 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2.CC<J] 1 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 15.7.88 of the Madras High Court in C.M.S.A. No. 30 of 1983. K.V. Viswanathan and S.R. Setia for the Appdlant. V. Sudter for S. Srinivasan for the Respondents. B The following Order of the Court was ddivered : The only qut:stion which ar: ses for consideration in this appeal is as to what is the meaning of the expression "not less than Rs. 1200" occurring in the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1979 (hereinaftt:r referred to as 'the C said Act'). The father of the respondent had executed a usufructuary mortgage deed in respect of a property in favour of the appellant herein for a sum of Rs. 10,000 on 25-12-1967. This property was given on lease to some D tenants for more than 10 years. Under the provisions of the said Act the respondents filed an application seeking direction that the usufructuary mortgage had been completely discharged. The respondents claimed to be debtors within the meaning of the Act. The appellant herein contended that the respondents could not be E regarded as debtors within the meaning of Section 3(3) of the said Act inasmuch as the rental value of the respondent's property was as much if not more than what is required under the Act. The District Munsif dis- missed the respondents application which was affirmed in appeal. In second appeal however the High Court came to the conclusion that the F respondents were debtors within the meaning of Section 3(3) of the Act. It came to the conclusion that the annual rental value of Rs. 1200 was not enough to deprive them of the benefit of being regarded as debtors. The admitted fact being that the annual rental value of the property belonging to the rt:spondents being Rs. 12CO the question is whether the G respondents can be regarded as debtors. The relevant provision of Section 3 (3) of the said Act reads as under : "3(3) 'debtor' means any person from whom any debt is due; Provided that a person shall not be deemt:d to be a debtor if H he, ~ I _; M.X ABDLL PA WOOF v. PICHA\1L THli 763 (i) has in both the financial years ending on the 31st March, A 1977 and the 31st March, 1978, been assessed to -- (a) income-tax under thi;; Income tax Act, 1961 (Central Act XLIII of 1961) or under the income tax law in force in any foreign country; or (b) agricultural income-tax under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1955) or under any law in force in any o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.