Order: The Plaintiff in O.S.No.151 of 1982, District Munsif s Court, Pudukottai, is the petitioner in this civil Revision Petition. On 23-12-1971, the petitioner obtained a preliminary decree on a mortgage against the respondent herein and others. Since no amounts were paid to the petitioner as directed in the preliminary decree, he filed I.A.No.332 of 1982 in O.S.No.151 of 1982 under Order 34, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the passing of a final decree. That application was resisted by the respondent herein, who was the 4th defendant in the suit, on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, Act 13 of 1980, and therefore, the preliminary decree should be declared to have been discharged. 2. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the petitioner, Ex.A.1 was filed and the petitioner was examined as P.W.1, while, on behalf of the respondent, Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked and the respondent and another gave evidence as R.Ws. 1 and 2. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned District Munsif found that the market value of the lands and the houses jointly owned by the respondent and his brother was Rs.43,180 and the value of the share of the respondent therein would only be Rs.21,590. However, it was also found that the annual household income of the respondent had not been established to be less than Rs.4,800 and in that view, it was held that the respondent is not entitled to claim the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. On the aforesaid conclusions, the trial court passed a final decree against the respondent and some others. Aggrieved by this, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No.27 of 1985, Sub Court, Pudukottai. An application in I.A.No.61 of 1985 was also filed by the respondent for reception of certain documents as additional evidence. That application was allowed and Exs:B-4 to B-7 were marked in evidence before the appellate Court. On a consideration of the documents filed as additional evidence, and also the other evidence already on record, the lower appellate court concluded that the respondent had made out that the market value of the properties owned by him on the relevant date was less than Rs.25,000 and further that, his annual house-hold income was also less than Rs.4,800. On a consideration of the documents filed as additional evidence, and also the other evidence already on record, the lower appellate court concluded that the respondent had made out that the market value of the properties owned by him on the relevant date was less than Rs.25,000 and further that, his annual house-hold income was also less than Rs.4,800. On that conclusion, the lower appellate Court held that the decree obtained by the petitioner against the respondent herein should be declared to have been discharged and that the application filed by the petitioner for the passing of a final decree in I.A.No.332 of 1982 deserved to be dismissed. It is the correctness of this order that is questioned by the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. In this Civil Revision Petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the conclusion of the lower appellate court that the annual house-hold income of the respondent was less than Rs.4,800. Relying on Ex:A-l, the only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that under Proviso (vii) to Sec.3 (d) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, Act 13 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), it would suffice to deny the benefits of that Act to the respondent, if the respondent jointly owned with another both agricultural lands and other immovable properties, the market value of which exceeded Rs.25,000. Elaborating this, learned counsel submitted that Ex.A-1 clearly established that the market value, as on the relevant date, of the agricultural lands and other immovable properties owned jointly by the petitioner and another, was Rs.43,180, and that would preclude the respondent from claiming the benefits of the Act, as the respondent shall not be deemed to be a debtor. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted drawing attention to Provisos (vi) and (vii) to section 3(d) of the Act, that they provide for different situations depending upon the ownership of other immovable property, whether owned individually or jointly, or both agricultural lands and other immovable properties owned individually or jointly, market value of which exceeded Rs.25,000 and that the requirement is that the market value of the share of the individual, even though the properties are owned jointly with another, should not exceed Rs.25,000 and that is satisfied in this case justifying the order passed by the court below. 4. 4. Section 3(g) of the Act defines a ‘person’ to mean ‘an individual or a family’. The expression ‘family’ is defined in section 3(e), as meaning ‘the individual, the wife or the husband, as the case may be, of such individual, and their unmarried minor children’, In this case, there are no materials to indicate the size of the family of the respondent, and he has, therefore, to be treated only as an individual. Ex. A-1 dated 25-10-1982 issued by the Tahsildar, Tirumayam, shows that Sultan Rowther, deceased brother of the respondent, and the respondent jointly owned nanja and punja lands with a well and a house, the market value of which had been stated to be Rs.43,180. It is on the basis of the valuation so reflected in Ex. A-1 that the contention is raised on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent owns jointly with another, lands and house, the market value of which is in excess of Rs.25,000, and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to claim the benefits of the Act. However, it is difficult to construe Proviso (vii) to sec.3(d) of the Act in the manner contended for by the petitioner. Provisos (vi) and (vii) to Sec.3(d) of the Act take a particular category of debtors out of the category of persons entitled as debtors to claim the benefits of the Act. Under Proviso (vi), the ownership, individually or jointly, of immovable property, other than agricultural lands, the market value of which exceeds of Rs.25,000, would prevent a debtor from claiming the benefits of the Act. Likewise, under Proviso (vii), the ownership, whether individually or jointly, of both agricultural lands and other immovable properties, the market value of both of which exceeds Rs.25,000, would prevent a debtor from claiming the benefits of the Act. The idea behind Provisos (vi) and (vii) to section 3(d) of the Act appears to be that, whether individually a debtor owns immovable property or agricultural lands and other immovable property, the market value of which exceeded Rs.25,000, or, whether he jointly owned with another, immovable property or agricultural lands and other immovable properties the value of which exceeded Rs.25,000, in either event, he would be disentitled to claim the benefits of the Act. In deciding the question whether a debtor is so disentitled under Provisos (vi) and (vii) to section 3(d) of the Act, it is seen if immovable properties or agricultural lands and other immovable property are owned by a debtor individually and the market value of that on the relevant date exceeded Rs.25,000, then the debtor would not be entitled to claim the benefits of the Act. In so far as the joint ownership is concerned, it cannot be construed differently. Provisos (vi) and (vii) to section 3(d) of the Act also provide for a contingency when an individual may not be exclusively the owner of either immovable property or agricultural lands and other immovable properties. In a case where an individual holds jointly with another, immovable property or agricultural lands and other immovable properties, before he can be held to be disqualified from claiming the benefits of the Act, the market value of the properties held by the individual though jointly with another, should appropriately form the basis for the disqualification. A contrary interpretation would deprive a large body of debtors the benefits of the Act, for the reason, that the market value of the totality of the holding jointly held could be in excess of Rs.25,000, though the market value of the share of the debtors concerned, may be less than Rs.25,000. Such a situation could hardly have been intended by the Legislature. Taking into] account the avowed object of the Act, viz., to provide relief to indebted persons and to give relief to them from debts, it is but proper to give an interpretation to Proviso (vii) to section 3(d) of the Act consistent with that object. Looked at from that point of view, the proper interpretation of Proviso (vii) to section 3(d) of the Act would be, even in a case where the agricultural lands and other immovable properties are jointly held by the debtor claiming the benefits of the Act and another, to take into account only the market value of the share of the individual debtor and not to consider the totality of the market value of the total holding and deprive the debtor claiming the benefits of the Act, on the footing that the market value of the agricultural lands and other immovable properties jointly owned by a debtor and another exceeded Rs.25,000. Thus, considering the objects of the Act, the proper interpretation to be given to Proviso (vii) to section 3(d) of the Act would be as stated above. In that view, the lower appellate court was quite right in holding that in so far as the respondent is concerned, only one half of the market value, out of Rs.43,180, should be taken into account as the market value of the properties owned by the respondent for the purpose of ascertaining whether he can claim the benefits of the Act. No other point was urged. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. R.S. ----- Petition dismissed.