The Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to issue a certificate of discharge under S. 6 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980 while a civil court decree is pending. The burden of proving entitlement to the benefits of the Act lies on the judgment debtor.

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, the Lower Court said that the judgment- debtor is not entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. The correctness of the same is challenged in this revision.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so long as the order of the Tahsildar remains unchallenged, the same having been issued by an authority under the Statute, it must be given proper weight, and .so long as there is no counter evidence, the judgment-debtor is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. It is also contended by learned counsel that while considering the entitlement to the benefit, the executing Court has taken into consideration irrelevant circumstances, i.e., the assets and income of the judgment- debtor as of 1986 were taken into consideration and, therefore, it is patently illegal.

6. I will first consider what is the evidentiary value of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar.

7. In 1982 TLNJ 66 (R.K.R. Radhakrishna Chettiar and Sons v. Tahsildar (Debt Relief), Kumbakonam, a Division Bench of this Court considered this aspect. In that case also, a mortgage decree was obtained and while the decree was pending execution, the judgment-debtor moved the Tahsildar for getting a certificate. The certificate was issued under S.6 of the Act. The correctness of the same was challenged in a writ petition before this Court. While considering the same, their Lordships said that when a matter is pending before Civil Court, it is not proper on the part of the judgment-debtor to move the Tahsildar to have the obligations under a decree discharged. This Court also said that while exercising the statutory power and issuing the certificate, the Tahsildar has exceeded his powers in declaring a decree debt which is pending execution before Civil Court as having been discharged, and, therefore, the certificate is of no value. The Bench held thus :-

"We are inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases. There is no dispute that in all these three cases, decrees have already been obtained by the petitioners in a Civil Court. In two cases mortgage decrees have been passed and in another case, money decree has been passed. All the said decrees are under execution before the Civil Court. Notwithstanding the existence of the decrees the Special Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector, Kumbakonam have invoked their power and have granted certificates of discharge in favour of the debtors. By granting such certificates, they have in fact, nullified the decrees passed by the Civil Court. We do not see how either the Special Tahsildar or the Sub-Collector can go behind the decrees. The status does not by pass the decrees already passed by the Civil Court. Admittedly, there is no non obstante clause in either of the Ss.4, 5 and 6. In the absence