Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a debtor who had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000 on 8th December, 1972, on mortgage of his property in favour of the third respondent. Subsequently, the mortgagor had sold his property in the year 1974 to his son. One of the terms of the sale deed is that the mortgage money has to be paid by the purchaser out of the sale consideration retained by him. Having taken the sale deed, the purchaser who is the petitioner herein sought the benefit of Act 13 of 1980 and also sought a certificate of redemption of the mortgage on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits of the Act. Both the Deputy Tahsildar (original authority) as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer (appellate authority) have held that since the petitioner (the purchaser of the property) has retained out of the sale consideration the mortgage money payable to the third respondent, the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefits of the Act in view of S. 12(1) of the Act 13 of 1980. The said view taken by the authorities below has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. It is found that the decision of both the authorities below is consistent with the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Abraham, S v. The State of Tamil Nadu 1 which squarely applies to the facts of this case. In that decision it was specifically held that the purchaser of a house property which was sold to him subject to a mortgage with a direction by the vendor to pay the money due thereon to the mortgagee was held not entitled to claim the benefit of S. 6 of the Act, in view of S. 12(1) exempting the debt representing the portion of the purchase price of the property purchased by a debtor. In this view, no interference has been called for in the orders passed by the authorities below. 3. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.