Respondent cannot be held as debtor.

M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit on a promissory note. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the suit promissory note was not a genuine one and he, being an agriculturist, is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. Having accepted the plea of the plaintiff, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by this judgment, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn, allowed the appeal by dismissing the suit.

( 2 ) THOUGH the lower appellate Court accepted the plea of the plaintiff that the suit promissory note was a genuine one, it gave a finding on the basis of Ex. B. 12 to Ex. B. 17 that the defendant owns properties only worth about Rs. 13,000/- which are less than Rs. 25,000/-, the amount prescribed under Act 13 of 1980 and hence, the respondent herein is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. This is challenged by the plaintiff/appellant herein.

( 3 ) THE counsel for the appellant would press into service the following contentions :THE defendant is not entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 because the trial Court gave a finding that the annual income of the defendant comes to Rs. 8,000/-, which is more than the prescribed limit of Rs. 4,800/-per annum. The finding given by the trial Court with reference to this aspect has not been disturbed by the lower appellate Court. Secondly, the lower appellate Court merely on the basis of the Tahsildars certificate which is not admittedly marked before the lower appellate Court, though the pattas were marked as Exs. B. 12 to B. 17, had arrived at a conclusion that the total value of the properties owned by the defendant was only Rs. 13,000/-as per the certificate of the Tahsildar, and as such, the value of the defendants property would be less than Rs. 25,000/- which is prescribed limit as per the Act 13 of 1980.

( 4 ) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit in support and justification of the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court.

( 5 ) I heard both appearing for the parties.

( 6 ) THE point for consideration in this second appeal is, whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the respondent is a debtor within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980 is correct.

( 7 ) THE word "debtor" is defined under Section 3 (d) of the Act. "debtor" means any person from whom any debt is due and whose annual house-hold income does not exceed four thousand and eight hundred rupees. Under proviso, it is mentioned that a person shall not be deemed to be a debtor, if he owns the agricultural lands and other immovable property, the market value of both such agricultural lands and other immovable property exceeds twenty-five thousand rupees.

( 8 ) ON consideration of the materials placed before the trial Court, learned Additional District Munsif, Ariyalur, in O. S. No. 1420 of 1980 found that the defendants annual income is Rs. 8, 000/- which exceeds the amount of Rs. 4,800/-as mentioned in the definition Section 3.

( 9 ) THE lower appellate Court only on the basis of the Tahsildars Certificate which was not marked before the lower appellate Court, though the other documents were allowed to be marked as additional documents, has come to the conclusion that the defendant/respondent is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980, in view of the fact that the value of his landed properties is worth about Rs. 13,000/-which is less than Rs. 25,000/- as prescribed by the Act 13 of 1980.

( 10 ) THE reading of the judgment of the lower appellate Court would clearly show that the lower appellate Court has completely over-looked the definition of the word debtor as defined under the Act 13 of 1980 and allowed itself to be misled by the proviso to Section 3.

( 11 ) THE question of value of the immovable properties, according to the section and proviso, would arise only if the respondent/defendant has