SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Mad) 46

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Sambandam – Appellant
Versus
Janakiammal – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:R. Subramaniam For M/s. K. Jayaraman, V. Yuvakumar, T. V. Krishnamachari, Advocates.

Judgment :-

This revision is by the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 260 of 1974, on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Sirkali.

2. A mortgage decree was obtained by the respondent herein and when the same was sought to be executed, the judgment-debtor claimed the benefit of Act 13 of 1980, i.e., Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980.

3. In execution petition when the property was brought to sale, the judgment- debtor moved the local Tahsildar to get certificate of discharge under S.6 of the Act. It is seen that notice of the said application was given to the decree holder, but she did not appear. Naturally an ex parte order was passed by the Tahsildar issuing a certificate declaring that the debt has been discharged. In the meanwhile, in execution in Civil Court, a date was fixed for sale. The judgment-debtor, therefore, filed C.R.P. No. 2070 of 1983 before this Court, and this Court, as per order dated 12-7-1989, set 'aside the order of the Court below and directed the executing Court to consider the evidentiary value of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar and how far the judgment-debtor is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980.

4. After remand, by the impugned order, th


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top