The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for redemption of mortgage is not barred by the provisions of Act 13 of 1980 or Act 50 of 1982, which provide an additional remedy for indebted agriculturists.

1. Defendant in O.S.No.394 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsifs Court at Srivaikundam, is the appellant.

2. Suit filed by the plaintiff was one for redemption of Ex.Al mortgage dated 28. 1975. Plaintiff borrowed an amount of Rs 4,000 and executed a othi and possession was also handed over to the defendant. According to the plaintiff,the othi period is over on 25. 1990. She being an agriculturist is entitled to the benefit of Act 40 of 1979 as per provisions of that Act. Since the property is in the possession of the defendant for more than ten years, the plaintiff is entitled to redeem mortgage without payment. The plaintiff made a demand on 7. 1992 which was received by the defendant on 17. 1992. The defendant did not send any reply nor he surrendered the property to her. The suit was therefore laid to recover property from the defendant free from encumbrances.

3. Theappellant contented that suit is not maintainable in law and only an application before the Local Tahsildar is to be made for redemption and the Civil Suit is not maintainable. He also disputed the allegation that the plaintiff is an agriculturist, entitled to the benefit of Act 40 of 1979.

4. The trial court as per judgment dated 310. 95, passed a decree in terms of the plaint except the relief for mesne profits. The trial Court found that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of Act 40 of 1979 and the defendant is in possession of the property for more than 10 years and consequently the mortgage stands discharged and the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the property without any payment.

5. The matter was taken in appeal as A.S.No.194 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Judges court at Tuticorin. The lower appellate Court also confirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal.

6. In this second appeal, the appellant challenges the concurrent finding on the following substantial questions of law:

.(1) Whether the provision of Act 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982 will prevail over Act 40 of 1979?

.(2) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter?

7. The fact that the plaintiff is an agriculturist, entitled to the benefit of Act 40 of 1979, Act 13 of 1980 or Act 50 of 1982 is concurrently found by the courts below. In fact, the counsel for the appellant did not seriously contend those findings. Even on merits, I do not find any ground to interfere with those findings of fact whereby the courts below have found that the income of plaintiff is below Rs.3,000 only per annum and she is an agriculturist. In fact, the appellant during his examination has said that, income of plaintiff is only about Rs.3,000 per annum. The finding that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of those enactments are therefore confirmed.

8. Themain point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was, the suit is not maintainable and the remedy of the plaintiff is only to more an application before the Tahsildar and get release of the property. A special machinery is provided under Act 13 of 1980 and the plaintiff will have to only invoke that jurisdiction. The argument is that there is a Special Tribunal to invoke the powers to release the property of agriculturists, the civil remedy is barred, Courts below were therefore not right in entertaining the suit.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent disputed the claim of the appellant and submitted that the same point was not urged before the courts below and at any rate, there is no bar for entertaining a suit for redemption in any of these enactments. Counsel submitted that the suit is also not impliedly barred. Further argument of the learned counsel was that while granting a decree for redemption through the Civil Court, the appellant is not prejudiced in any way.

10. Heard the counsel on both sides.

11. Before considering the bar of jurisdiction, let us take the relevant provision of Act 40 of 1979, Act 13 of 1980 and Act 50 of 1982. Under Act 40 of 1979, there is no