ORDER Sathiadev, J. 1. Decree-holder in O.S.No. 544 of 1978 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Peramalur is the petitioner, and the judgment-debtor is the respondent. In execution of a money decree obtained, the properties of the respondent were attached and brought to sale in execution proceedings. It was at that stage, E.A. No. 14 of 1981 was filed under Section 4(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980, claiming benefits under the Act. Petitioner claimed that respondent owns 46 cents of nanja land, which is fed with water from a nearby lake, and there is also a well with motor and pumpset. Apart from it, he owns 2/2 acres of land, which is also cultivated with well water with the help of an oil engine. An annual income of Rs. 12,000 is derived, from and out of those properties worth about Rs. 75,000. He also owns a house property situated on the main road of a value of Rs. 10,000. Therefore, the provisions of the Act would not apply to him. 2. The executing Court held that respondent owns 3.32 acres of nanja and punja lands, which is lesser than 5 acres of irrigated lands, as mentioned in Section 3(d)(v) of Tamil Nadu Act 50 of 1982, and the total value of the properties is only Rs. 14,000 and the income there-from is only about Rs. 2,500 annually, and therefore, he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Acts 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982, and hence, the entire decree amount is wiped out. 3. In filing this revision petition against such findings, Mr. A.K. Kumaraswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that, the evidence taken into account without complying with the requirements of the Explanation to Proviso (vii) to Section 3(d) of T.N. Act, 13 of 1980, was improper and illegal. The said Explanation reads as follows: For the purpose of Provisos (vi) and (vii), the market value of the immovable property of both the agricultural lands and other immovable property, as the case may be, shall be estimated to be the price, which in the opinion of the authority prescribed in this behalf, such immovable property or both the agricultural lands and other immovable property, as the case may be, would have fetched if sold in the open market on the 19th April, 1980. 4. 4. Once a statute prescribes a particular method to arrive at the market value of a property for the purposes of the Act, then the prescribed procedure will have to be followed. In so far as provisos (vi) and (vii) are concerned, the legislative intent in determining the market value of the immovable property is that it should be done by a prescribed authority, who is to find out the market value, which it would have fetched if sold in the open market on the 19th April, 1980. This prescription under the Act cannot be overlooked. It is the imperative duty of the Court in evaluating the market value to fix it, dependant upon the opinion of the prescribed authority on the estimated price of the property on the crucial date. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to Sundarambal Achi v. The Appellate Authority and Sub-Collector, Kumbakonam , which dealt with the claim based on a promissory note, and it was held that neither Section 5 nor Section 6 of the Act applies to that case, and only Section 4 would stand attracted, and therefore, when a decree had been already obtained, it is only in execution stage, the debtor can file an application claiming benefits under the Act, and in which event, it will have to be found out whether the 'debtor' could claim the benefits under the Act and grant relief if he is entitled to it. The debtor therein had approached the Tahsildar for a certificate of discharge, and he dismissed it on the ground that he was holding property other than cultivable lands to the value of Rs. 38,000; and on appeal, it was held that he was entitled to the benefits under the Act as it had not been shown that he was possessed of immovable property worth more than Rs. 25,000, and that the certificate given by the Tahsildar could not be accepted because he was not the competent authority; and even otherwise, the certificate gives only an approximate value and not the actual market value. 25,000, and that the certificate given by the Tahsildar could not be accepted because he was not the competent authority; and even otherwise, the certificate gives only an approximate value and not the actual market value. The Division Bench held that by G.O.Ms.No. 2416, Revenue, dated 24th November, 1980, the Tahsildars and Deputy Tahsildars having been appointed as prescribed authorities for determining the value of the properties under Explanation to Section 3(vi) and (vii), the appellate authority should have accepted the certificate given by the Tahsildar, which would show that the debtor owns properties worth more than Rs. 25,000. Relying on this decision, learned Counsel for the respondent, would state that the Division Bench has held that in spite of securing such a certificate from the Tahsildar in respect of a claim based on promissory note, the Civil Court will find out whether the debtor would be entitled to the benefits of the Act or not. 5. In R.N. Muthiah, v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, the same Division Bench while construing Explanation to Proviso (vi) to Section 3(d) of the Act, in a writ petition, held that when a valuation certificate is given by the Tahsildar, it cannot be rejected on the ground that he did not have, the engineering knowledge and experience. It was a case wherein the appellate authority rejected the certificate issued by the Tahsildar on the grounds that the Tahsildar was not competent to give such a certificate, and that the certificate gives only the approximate value and not the exact value of the property as on 19th April, 1980. The question as to whether such a certificate is conclusive or not, had not been gone into by the Division Bench. 6. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the respondent herein that the certificate contemplated in the abovesaid Explanation is one which would be relevant only in respect of matters wherein authorities constituted under the Act would have the power of adjudication to wipe out the debts, and not in respect of matters wherein the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide as to whether the debtor is entitled to the benefits of the Act or not. 7. There is nothing to indicate or infer from the Explanation that its applicability is confined only to cases wherein relief is grantable by constituted authorities under the Act. 7. There is nothing to indicate or infer from the Explanation that its applicability is confined only to cases wherein relief is grantable by constituted authorities under the Act. Provisos (vi) and (vii) could be availed of by debtors, who seek benefits under the Act, irrespective of the fact whether the matter is one which comes up before the constituted authority or in a Civil Court. 8. Therefore, in such of those instances wherein Section 3(d) (vi) and (vii) become applicable, the requirements under this Explanation will have to be complied with. Before the Civil Court begins to determine the market value of the properties, it is necessary for the parties to the proceedings to secure the certificate as contemplated therein from the prescribed authority, which would be a relevant piece of evidence but rebuttable. It will form the basis for the concerned parties to adduce necessary evidence to show as to how far the opinion of the constituted authority is correct or not. If no convincing or acceptable contra evidence is produced, then it has to be acted upon. As stated earlier, it will be a rebuttable piece of evidence, but without this statutory opinion, such of those matters which come under these provisos cannot be proceeded with by a Civil Court, while fixing the market value of the property. 9. Therefore, when such a certificate had not been filed, the matter is remitted to the Court below for being disposed of in the light of what had been held above. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed with costs.