P. NIRATHILINGAM versus ANNAYA NADAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 31-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P. NIRATHILINGAM 
v. 
ANNAYA NADAR AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 31, 2001 
( 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, I980-Sections 4 and 5-Relief from 
indebtness-Jurisdiction of-Special Tahsildar-Institution of Civil Suit for 
realisation of the mortgage amount by creditor on the proceedings initiated 
c 
on application for grant of relief from indebtness filed by the debtor-Effect 
of-Held, Special Tahsildar to determine the question relating to the grant of 
relief from indebtness to the debtor to the exclusion of Civil Court-Such 
proceedings pending before the Tahsildar or the Appellate Authority cannot 
be dismissed without adjudication. 
D 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Interpretation which defeats the intent and purpose of a statute-Such 
interpretation, to be avoided. 
E 
Appellant-debtor mortgaged his land in favour of one 'R' which was 
subsequently assigned in favour of Respondent No. 1 for consideration. 
The Appellant filed an application before the Special Tahsildar (Debt 
Relief) seeking relief under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 
F 
1980 on pecuniary considerations. Creditor Respondent No. 1 opposed the 
application during its pendency and also filed a civil suiL On inquiry, the 
Special Tahsildar concluded that the Appellant was entitled to the relief. 
Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer 
which was dismissed. Respondent No. 1 then filed a writ petition before the 
High Court. Single Judge held that on filing of the civil suit, the Special 
G 
Tahsildar who was the competent authority under the Act ceased to have 
{ . 
... 
jurisdiction in the matter and the decision of the civil court would be 
binding on the parties. Division Bench confirmed the same. Hence the 
present appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
608 
P. NIRATHILINGAM v. ANNA YA NADAR 
609 
. HELD :. 1. The Special Tahsildar could have passed the order grant-
ing relief to the Appellant-debtor long after institution of the Civil suit by 
Respondent No. 1 and during the pendency of the said suit before the 
competent civil court. [611"B] 
K. V.S.P. Subramanian Chettfor v. R.D.O. Arantangi PudukottaiDistfict, 
[1982] mMLJ 37?, overruled. 
2. The legislative scheme of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 1980 ~s 
not to allow interference by any Court with determination of the question 
by the Tahsildar of the Applicant-debtor's eligibility to receive benefit 
under the Act, and his order is made final subject to appeal under Section 
8. The jurisdiction vests in the statutory authorities to determine such a 
question to the exclusion of the Court so that a debtor who is entitled to the 
benefits under the Act.is able to enjoy such benefit without the hassle of a 
protracted litigation in a civil court or revenue court. The view taken by 
the High Court that if a civil suit for realisation of the amount or any other 
relief based on the debt in question has been filed or on the filing of such a 
suit the Tahsildar would lose his jurisdiction to deal with the matter is 
accepted, it will defeat the very purpose of granting relief to a certain class 
of indebted persons in the State for which the legislature enacted the 
statute and it would be easy for a creditor to prevent the debtor from 
getting.benefits granted tinder the ~ct by filing civil suit relating to the 
debt. [616-H; 617-A-B] 
3. When a suit is. filed by the creditor against the debtor before the 
debtor made the application to the Tahsildar seeking relief ~oder the Act 
the proper and reasonable course to be followed is to stay the proceeding in 
the suit till the Tahsildar/appellate authority disposes of the proceeding under 
the statute. If it is held in th~t proceeding that the debtor is not entitled to 
the benefit under the Act then the civil suit may be proceeded with if on the/ 
other hand, it is held that the debtor is entitled to the benefits provided in 
the Act then the suit has to be dismissed under Section 4. Thus, in ~o case it 
can be held that by filing a civil suit for realisation of the mortgage amount 
the proceeding pending before the Tahsildar or the appellate authority is to 
be dismissed· without adjudication. [(i17-G-H; 618-A-B] 
.cIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ~ Civil Appeal No. 6468 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.97 <;>f the Madras High Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
in W.A. No. 971 of 1996. 
H 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
·S. Ganesh (A.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.