Judgment :- The respondent had obtained a money decree against one Ramachandra Udayar in O.S.363 of 1969 on the file of the learned Subordinate 3udge of Thiruvannamalai. E.P.480 of 1981 was filed for executing the decree against the debtor. Pending the E.P., the debtor died. His wife, two sons and two daughters who are the petitioners herein, were brought on record as his legal representatives. The legal representatives filed a petition claiming benefits under Act 13 of 1980. That petition was dismissed holding that the legal representatives are not entitled to claim the benefits of the Act. There could be no doubt that this view is right. The execution is sought against the legal representatives only on the basis that some of the assets of the deceased are in the hands of the legal representatives, and the decree-holder is entitled to proceed against the assets of the deceased in the hands of the legal representatives. It is not on the basis that after the death of the judgment-debtor the legal representatives have become debtors of the deceased. Legal representatives would not come within the meaning of a debtor under the Act which defines debtor as meaning a person from whom any debt was due. It may be that the legal representatives can invoke the provisions of Act 13 of 1980 on the ground that the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist. That question may have to be considered if raised because if the judgment-debtor was a debtor within the meaning of the Act he would be entitled to the relief and that point should have to be decided for the simple reason only to the extent of liability as determined, the legal representatives would be bound to pay, and that also to the extent of the estate of the judgment-debtor in their hands. A similar question arose for consideration before Shanmukham, J., in Sura Nisha v. Raju, (1984)2 M.L.J. 152 : 97 L.W. 378, with reference to the relief available to a debtor under Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 38 of 1972. The learned Judge held that if the original debtor was not entitled to the relief under the Act, his legal representatives could not claim any relief under that Act. The learned Judge held that if the original debtor was not entitled to the relief under the Act, his legal representatives could not claim any relief under that Act. In this connection, the learned Judge, referring to the relevant provisions, observed:- “In the absence of express conferment of the benefit on the legal representative of the debtor or the mortgagor, I am unable to hold that the benefits extended to the debtor under Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1972 will also be available to his legal representatives. As earlier pointed out by me, so far as Act 4 of 1938 is concerned, the benefit is extended to an ‘agriculturist’ with no limitation whatever. But Act 38 of 1972 is intended to provide for the relief of certain indebted persons in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is significant to notice that in this case the heirs of the deceased mortgagor are Mohammedans and are governed by the Mohamedan Law; what they inherit is the residue of the estate of the deceased; that is whole estate less his liability (underlining is by me). The liability is therefore that of the deceased, but not that of his heirs. Hence, it is but reasonable to hold that if the debtor himself could not claim any relief under any of the Debt Relief Acts his heirs can have no better claim than the deceased himself had. Further, the heirs in the above circumstanc’s can hardly be called debtors, for, they are bound to discharge the debt of the deceased not personally but out of the respective shares in their respective....” Ultimately, the learned Judge held that the legal representatives of the deceased dector are not entitled to invoke the protection adumberated in Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1972. The ratio of this judgment fully applied to the instant case. There is also no specific provision in Act 13 of 1980 enabling the legal representatives to claim the benefits of the Act as is found in Act 4 of 1938. In the circumstances, the petitioners herein are not entitled to claim the benefits of the provisions of Act 13 of 1980. It may, however, be mentioned that they did not ask for a declaration that the original debtor was an agriculturist and that he was entitled to any benefit, which benefit should have been given to them. 2. In the circumstances, the petitioners herein are not entitled to claim the benefits of the provisions of Act 13 of 1980. It may, however, be mentioned that they did not ask for a declaration that the original debtor was an agriculturist and that he was entitled to any benefit, which benefit should have been given to them. 2. In the circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.