The discharge of a judgment debt must be governed by the substantive law applicable where the debt was incurred, not by the laws of the state of execution.

1. A question of considerable importance arises for consideration in this civil revision petition pursuant to an order of reference made by Natarajan. J. The learned Judge has referred the matter for decision by a Bench as he disagreed with the ratio of Ratnavel Pandian. J. in K.P. Kesava Mudaliar v. P.T. Sengoda Mudaliar , by Partner A. Raja Devan, 1981 TLNJ 149 - C.R.P. 2583 of 1980, order dated 10th Oct. 1980. The question is whether a decree for money passed by a court outside the State of Tamil Nadu and transferred for execution to a court within the State of Tamil Nadu, within whose Jurisdiction the judgment - debtor has properties. can be declared to have been discharged under S.4 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1970 (for short the Act) and whether the execution petition filed by the decree - holder can be said to have abated under S.4 (c) of the Act. Ratnavel Pandian. J. held in the negative on the ground that the cause of action arose outside the State of Tamil Nadu.

2. To appreciate the question of law that falls for decision, it is necessary to state a few facts. The judgment - debtor is the revision Petitioner. The respondent is the assignee - decree - holder. The original decree - holder obtained a decree against the petitioner in A.S. 89 of 1967 on the file of the City Civil Court. Bombay and had that decree transferred to the file of the Sub. Court, Chingleput. for the purpose of execution. The revision petitioner filed E. A. 32 of 1981 and claimed the benefits of the Act and Prayed that the execution petition should be dismissed as having abated. The executing court held that since the decree has been passed by the City Civil Court. Bombay the Provisions of the Act would not apply. In view of this finding, the executing Court did not consider the question whether the revision petitioner was a debtor within the meaning of the Act.

3. Before we consider the contention of Mr. Raghavan, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act. The Act is intended to provide relief to certain indebted persons in the State of Tamil Nadu. The preamble states
"Whereas it is expedient to provide relief to certain indebted Persons in the State of Tamil Nadu from the usurious practices of pawn brokers, money lenders and other non - institutional sources of credit and to give relief from the debts due to such pawn brokers, money lenders and other non - institutional sources of credit. S.3 (c) defines a debt thus: "Debt means any liability in cash or in kind whether secured or uncured and whether decreed or not at does not include arrears of taxes due the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority. S.3 (d) defines a debtor thus: "Debtor means any person from whom any debt due and whose annual household income does not exceed four thousand and eight hundred rupees. The proviso states that a person shall not be deemed to be debtor under certain circumstances. S.4 of the Act reads as follows:
"4. Relief from indebtedness: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938.... or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract or instrument having force by virtue of any such law and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, and in particular sub-sec. (2) with effect on and from the commencement of this Act -
(a) every debt advanced or incurred before the first day of January 1980 (including ap