Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the wife of the judgment-debtor against the order dated 8.8.1989 in E.A. No. 113 of 1989 in E.P. No. 336 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore. The revision petition was admitted by this Court on 1.9.1989. 2. According to the petitioner, she claimed benefits under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980 as a legal heir of her deceased husband. It is also stated in the affidavit that whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under the Act was a subject matter in several other proceedings. A Full Bench of this Court held that persons like the petitioner are entitled to the benefits under the Act. While such being the case, the petitioner prayed that all the execution proceedings are to be dropped. Though a reference was made to the Full Bench, decision of this Court, the same was not placed before the lower Court at the time of hearing. 3. The said application was contested by the decree-holder on the following grounds: (a) In the appeal filed before the District Court, Coimbatore in A.S. No. 41 of 1984, neither the petitioner herein nor any of the legal representatives took the stand as regards their non liability (b) The suit deed arises out of a chit transaction which is specifically exclused from the Debt Relief Act. (c) The petitioner is not entitled to any relief or entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Act. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, by his order dated 8.8.1989 dismissed the application following the decision of the learned single Judge (V. Ramasamy, J, as be then was) in Pattammal and Others v. Ponnusamy Udayar (99 L.W. 627). The learned Judge took the view that the legal representatives cannot claim the benefits under Act 13 of 1980 and the execution which is sought against the legal representatives, was only on the basis that some of the assets of the deceased are in the hands of the legal representatives and the decreeholder is entitled to proceed against the assets of the deceased in the hands of the legal representatives. The learned Judge has further observed that, it is not on the basis that after the death of the judgment-debtor, the legal representatives have become debtors of the deceased. The learned Judge has further observed that, it is not on the basis that after the death of the judgment-debtor, the legal representatives have become debtors of the deceased. It is further held that there is no specific provision in Act 13 of 1980 enabling the legal representative to claim the benefits of the Act as is found in Act 4 of 1938 and, therefore, in the circumstances, the learned Judge dismissed the civil revision petition by holding that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. 5. It is also seen from the order impugned in this revision petition that though a reference was made about a Full Bench decision of this Court in Kaliammal, etc v. Raghurama Gounder & Others (1989 (1) L.W. 253), the said ruling was not placed before the Court by both parties. Hence, the E.A. was dismissed by the lower Court. Aggrieved by the decision, the judgment-debtor has filed the above civil revision petition in this Court. 6. Mr. Sathindran, learned counsel would submit that the lower Court has erred in relying upon the ruling in Pattammal and Others v. Ponnusamy Udayar (99 L.W. 627) (supra) by holding that the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980 cannot be claimed by the petitioner as the legal heirs of the husband as the provisions of the Act are not applicable to Mohammedans. He further contended that the decision in Pattammal and others v. Ponnusamy Udayar (supra) is no longer good law as the same has been reversed in a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kaliyammal, etc. v. Raghurama Gounder & Others (supra). Since there were conflicting decisions of this Court on the question as to the entitlement of the legal representatives claiming benefits under the Debt Relief Act, the same was originally referred to the decision by a larger Bench. The reference came up before a Division Bench consisting Sengottuvelan, J., and David Annousamy, J. which held that the legal representatives of the deceased-judgment debtor would not be construed as debtors under the Act and they could not claim any benefits thereunder. The reference came up before a Division Bench consisting Sengottuvelan, J., and David Annousamy, J. which held that the legal representatives of the deceased-judgment debtor would not be construed as debtors under the Act and they could not claim any benefits thereunder. Padmini Jesudurai, J., in view of the pronouncements of the Division Bench above in Komalambal and others v. Neelavathi Ammal (100 L.W. 1059) rejected the contentions of the petitioners that the legal representatives of the judgment debtors would individually claim benefits under the Act. The learned Judge therefore, dismissed the revision petition. 7. Two questions were referred to the Full Bench of this Court consisting of Nainar Sundaram, J. (as he then was) K.M. Natarajan, J and Bellie, J. They are as follows: “1. Whether the definition of ‘debtor’ in Tamil Nadu Acts 38 of 1972, 50 of 1982 and 13 of 1980 would include his heirs, legal representatives and assigns? and 2. Are not the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of a debtor governed by Mohammedan Law entitled to claim the benefits under the Acts?.” It is useful to extract paragraph 14 of the Full Bench which runs as follows: ( 1989(1) L.W. 253 ) “Now coming to the second question, the learned counsel for the respondent relies on the decision in Sara Nisha v. Raju (97 L.W. 378 = 1984-s. M.L.J. 152) which has been affirmed by a Division Bench in Komalambal v. Neelavathi Ammal (100 L.W. 1059) wherein it was held that the legal representatives of a debtor of a mortgagor is not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (38 of 1972) and the reasoning is that the said Act is intended to provide relief to certain indebted persons in the State of Tamil Nadu. Further the heirs of the deceased mortgagor were Mohammedans and were governed by the Mohammedan Law and what they inherited was the residue to the estate of the deceased, that is, his whole estate less his liability and that the liability was therefore that of the deceased but not that of his heirs. It was further held that the heirs, in the above circumstances, could hardly be called debtor, for, they were bound to discharge the debt of the deceased, not personally but out of the respective shares in their respective hands. It was further held that the heirs, in the above circumstances, could hardly be called debtor, for, they were bound to discharge the debt of the deceased, not personally but out of the respective shares in their respective hands. The proposition of law that under the Mohammedan law, the heirs of the deceased inherit the whole estate less his liability and that they are not personally liable for the deceased is not in dispute. In view of our finding on question No. 1 that the legal representatives, heirs and assigns of the debtor under the Tamil Nadu Debt Reliefs Act are entitled to the benefits of the said Act, there is absolutely no difficulty in extending the said benefit to the case of the Mohammedan also who also take the properties of the deceased less his debt. The only distinguishable fact between the Hindu and the Mohammedan is that in the case of Hindu, the heirs are liable to discharge the debt to the extent of the property in their hands, but in the case of Mohammedan, they were entitled to effect partition of the property only after the debts are discharged by them. The liability to discharge the debt after the death of the deceased by the heirs and legal representatives remain both in the case of Mohammedan as well as Hindu. Since we have taken the view that the legal representatives, heirs and assigns of deceased-debtor are entitled to claim the benefit of the Act, the said benefit cannot be negatived to the case of Mohammedan, merely because they discharge the debt precedent before effecting division of the property from out of the surplus of the properties left by the deceased. As there is a liability on the part of the legal representatives and heirs of the deceased Hindu, there is also a liability to discharge the debt after the death of the deceased in the case of a Mohammedan. Hence, we have no hesitation in answering this question also in favour of the legal representatives, assigns and heirs of the deceased Mohammedan debtor as persons entitled to claim the benefits of the Debt Relief Acts.” It is thus seen from the above ruling that the legal heirs and assigns of the deceased-debtor are entitled to claim the benefit of the Act and that the said benefit is also available to the case of the Mohammedan. 8. 8. The Full Bench answered questions 1 and 2 in the affirmative to the effect that the definition of ‘debtor’ in the Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1972, 50 of 1982 and 13 of 1980 includes his heirs, legal representatives and assigns and further, the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of a debtor governed by Mohammedan Law are also entitled to claim the benefits under the above Acts. By holding the said view, the Full Bench overruled the decision of the Division Bench in Komalambal v. Neelavathi Ammal (100 L.W. 1059) which, according to the Full Bench was wrongly decided. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench, the order of the lower court dismissing the application, following the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Pattammal and others v. Ponnusamy Udayar (supra), is, in my view erroneous. Therefore, the said order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower court. The lower Court shall consider the same on merits and on the basis of the affidavit and the specific points raised in the counter-affidavit of the decree-holder and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court. The Sub Court, Coimbatore shall dispose of the E.A. within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the records from this Court.