Judgment :- 1. Defendant is the appellant. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 1541 of 79 on the file of District Munsif, Vellore, for recovery of amount due on a promissory note, it is contended in the plaint that the defendant executed a suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff on 31-10-74 for a sum of Rs. 4,500/-on receipt of proper and valid consideration promising to repay the same with interest at 15 per cent. The defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1600/- on 17-10-1976 through her daughter and he endorsed on the pronote. Since the balance of the amount was not paid in spite of repeated demands, the plaintiffs had laid the present suit for recovery of the same. 2. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is contended that the defendant has filed suit for partition for her husbands share in O.S. 47 of 69 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore and she obtained a decree in her favour. Her son-in-law Govindasamy Naidu gave the funds for the conduct of the case for the dues to the son-in-law and the pronote was executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also supporting the defendant in the said partition suit. Hence the plaintiff is only a namelender and he did not pay any amount to the defendant. Moreover, the defendant is a small farmer entitled to the benefits of the Act 31 of 76. The suit is barred by limitation. In the additional written statement filed by the defendant, it is contended that she is entitled to fee benefits of Act 13 of 1980, hence prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 3. In support of the plaintiffs case, he himself was examined as P.W. 1. Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant was examined as D.W. 2 and one Kannappan was examined as D.W. 1. The defendant has also marked income certificate issued by the Tahsildar as Ex. B-1 and reply notice as Ex. B-2. 4. A reading of the judgment of the trial court shows that there is no much controversy on the execution and passing of consideration in the pronote. However, relying upon Ex. B-1 a certificate issued by Tahsildar, who was examined as D.W. 1, the learned District Munsif, Vellore, by judgment and decree dated 3-11-80, dismissed the suit as abated. B-2. 4. A reading of the judgment of the trial court shows that there is no much controversy on the execution and passing of consideration in the pronote. However, relying upon Ex. B-1 a certificate issued by Tahsildar, who was examined as D.W. 1, the learned District Munsif, Vellore, by judgment and decree dated 3-11-80, dismissed the suit as abated. 5. Against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Vellore, the plaintiff filed appeal in A.S. No. 11 of 82 before the Sub Court Vellore. The lower appellate court after holding that the suit pronote is supported by valid consideration, held that the defendant is not entitled to the benefits under the Act 31 of 76, likewise rejecting Ex. B-1 certificate issued by the Tahsildar. According to the lower appellate court, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to give such certificate holding that the defendant is also not entitled to the benefits under the Act 13 of 80, ultimately allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for. 6. Against the judgment of the Sub Court. Vellore, the defendant has filed the present Second Appeal before this Court. 7. Mrs. P. Bagyalakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that inasmuch as the defendant has produced a certificate Ex. B-1 issued by the competent authority, namely, the Tahsildar, under the provisions of Act 13 of 80, it is not open to the civil court to reject the same. 8. On the other hand, Mr. A. Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that Ex. B-1 cannot be acted upon for the simple reason that the same has not been issued in accordance with the provisions of Act 13 of 80. In other words, he contended that the Tahsildar did not send any notice to the creditor before issuing of such certificate as contemplated under the Act. 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of both the counsel. I have also perused Ex. B-1 certificate said to have been issued by D.W. 1 holding that the defendant has got an annual house-hold income of Rs. 1250/-. First of all, the Tahsildar is not competent to issue certificate in respect of money claims. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (Act 13 of 1980) contains the definitions. I have also perused Ex. B-1 certificate said to have been issued by D.W. 1 holding that the defendant has got an annual house-hold income of Rs. 1250/-. First of all, the Tahsildar is not competent to issue certificate in respect of money claims. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (Act 13 of 1980) contains the definitions. Under Section 3(a), “annual household income” means the aggregate of the gross annual income from all sources of all members of a family during the year ended on 31st December, 1979”. “Family” in relation to a person is defined in Section 3(e) as the individual, wife or husband as the case may be of such individual and their unmarried minor children. The appended Explanation states that the word “minor” used in Sec. 3(e) would take in persons, who had not completed 18 years of age. Sec. 3(b) defines a “creditor” as a person from or in respect of whom a debtor has borrowed or incurred a debt and includes the heir of such person. The expression “debt” is defined under S. 3(c) as meaning any liability in cash or kind whether secured or unsecured and whether decreed or not; but does not include arrears of taxes due to the Central Government or a State Government or a Local Authority. Section 3(d) defines a “debtor” as a person from whom any debt is due and whose annual household income does not exceed Rs. 4,800/-. A Proviso added by Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1981 sets out those cases where a person shall not be deemed to be a “debtor”. S. 3(f) and (q) define the words “interest” and “persons”. A “Tahsildar” is defined under S. 3(a) of the Act as including a Deputy Tahsildar in independent charge of a taluk or sub-taluk and any other officer of the Revenue department not below the rank of a Deputy Tahsildar empowered by the State Government, to exercise the powers and perform the functions of a Tahsildar under the Act. S. 3(1) proceeds to define “transferee” of the creditor. S. 4 enumerates the different cate gories of cases where relief is made available to debtors. S. 3(1) proceeds to define “transferee” of the creditor. S. 4 enumerates the different cate gories of cases where relief is made available to debtors. As per S. 4(1)(a) to (c) of the Act, on and from the date of the commencement of the Act, (a) every debt advanced or incurred before 1st January, 1980 (including interest, if any) and payable by the debtor to the creditor shall be deemed to be fully discharged; (b) no civil court shall entertain any suit or other proceedings against the debtor for the recovery of any amount on such debt (including interest, if any) and all suits and other proceedings (including appeals, revisions, attachments and execution proceedings) pending at the commencement of the Act against any debtor for the recovery of any such debt (including interest, if any) shall abate. A Proviso to S. 4(1)(b) of the Act is to the effect that if a suit or proceeding is instituted against two persons, one of whom is not a debtor, then, nothing in that section will apply as regards the maintainability of the suit or proceeding in so far as it related to the person, who is not a debtor. Likewise, a Proviso to S. 4(1)(c) of the Act makes it clear that nothing therein shall apply to the sale in respect of any such debt and S. 4(1)(d) makes provision for the release of a debtor undergoing detention in the civil prison in execution of any decree for money passed against him by a civil court in respect of any such debt. Ss. 4(1)(e) and 4(1)(f) of the Act provide for the return of the movable property pledged by a debtor and for the redemption of a mortgage executed by the debtor in favour of the creditor. The Explanation appended to S. 4(1)(f) states that the debtor is not entitled to a refund of any part of any debt repaid or interest paid or recovered from him before the commencement of the Act. S. 4(2) of the Act declares that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to any debtor, who is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Presidents Act 31 of 1976) only in so far as any debt to which that Act applies is concerned. S. 4(2) of the Act declares that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to any debtor, who is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Presidents Act 31 of 1976) only in so far as any debt to which that Act applies is concerned. Sec. 5 of the Act enables a “debtor” to make an application for the return of the movable property pledged by him. Such an application should be mad e in the prescribed form containing such particulars as may be prescribed to the Tahsildar having jurisdiction over the area where the creditor has his ordinary place of business and should be supported by an affidavit as well as a certificate from the prescribed authority as to the annual household income of the debtor. A time-limit upto 31st January 1981 for filing such application has now been fixed by Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1981. Section 5(2) contemplates the giving of an opportunity to the creditor as well as the debtor to make representations and the passing of an order, if the debtor is entitled to relief under Sec. 4, that the movable property pledged by the debtor be returned and directing the creditor to produce the same on or before the date specified in the order. Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act provides for the dismissal of an application if it is found that the debtor is not entitled to relief under Section 4. Sections 5(3) to 5(10) of the Act are provisions intended to give effect to the adjudication made by the Tahsildar under Section 5(2) of the Act and it is unnecessary to notice those provisions in detail. Section 6(1)(a) of the Act contemplates the making of an application by a debtor for an order releasing the mortgaged property and also for the grant of a certificate of redemption and the requirements are similar to those under Sec. 5(1)(a). The contents of the supporting documents required in such an application are enumerated in Section 6(1)(b). A time-limit upto 31st January, 1981 has now been provided for making such applications. The contents of the supporting documents required in such an application are enumerated in Section 6(1)(b). A time-limit upto 31st January, 1981 has now been provided for making such applications. Sec. 6(2)(a) provides for the giving of a reasonable opportunity to the creditor as well as the debtor to make their representations and in case it is found that a debtor is entitled to the benefits under Section 4 of the Act, an order releasing the mortgaged property shall be passed and a certificate of redemption should also be issued, which shall be admissible as evidence of redemption before a court of law or Other authority. If it is found that the debtor is not entitled to relief under Sec. 4, an order for dismissal of the application filed under Sec. 6(1) shall be made under Section 6(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. Sec. 6(1)(a) relates to the publication of a list of those debtors who had made an application under Sec. 6(1) and Sec. 6(3)(b) provides that if a debtor has not made an application within the time specified in sub-section (1), then such a debtor shall not be entitled to the relief under the Act. These provisions are comparable to Sec. 5(3)(a)(d) of the Act. Sec. 6(4) bars the creditor or the transferee of the creditor from transferring or otherwise assigning his interest or exercising his right of foreclosure in respect of the mortgaged property pending the passing of the order under Sec. 6(2) of the Act. Sec. 6(5) enables the Tahsildar in a case where the mortgaged property has been transferred or any right therein has been assigned to any one of the institutions referred to in Cl. (h) of Sec. 12 by the creditor, to recover from the creditor such amount as if due to such institutions in respect of the mortgaged property, as if it were an arrear of land revenue, for payment to the institution. Sec. 7 declares the finality of the orders of the Tahsildar passed under Sec. 5 or Sec. 6 of the Act, subject, of course, to an appeal under Sec. 8 and states that every such order under Sec. 5 or Sec. 6 shall not be called in question in any Court. Sec. 7 declares the finality of the orders of the Tahsildar passed under Sec. 5 or Sec. 6 of the Act, subject, of course, to an appeal under Sec. 8 and states that every such order under Sec. 5 or Sec. 6 shall not be called in question in any Court. Under Sec. 8, any person aggrieved by an order of the Tahsildar under the provisions of the Act is given a right of appeal to such authority as may be prescribed by the State Government. Sec. 8(2) declares the finality of the appellate decision and Sec. 8(3) provides that pending disposal of any such appeal, any movable property pledged by a debtor who is a party to such an appeal shall not be either returned or disposed of under the Act and that the Tahsildar shall not order the release of the mortgaged property or grant a certificate of redemption and the creditor or the transferee of the creditor shall not transfer, or otherwise assign his interest in or exercise his right of foreclosure in respect of the property mortgaged by the debtor. Sec. 9 lays an embargo upon the appearance of advocates on behalf of a party to the proceedings under the Act. Sec. 10 provides for penalty for failure to furnish the statement or to comply with the orders made under Sections 5 and 6 or filing false affidavits under those sections or for otherwise contravening the provisions of the said sections. Sec. 11 makes provision for the punishment of offences under the Act committed by a company. Sec. 12 enumerates the category of debts and liabilities not affected by the provisions of the Act. Sec. 13 enables the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. 10. The above mentioned provisions of the Act referred above clearly contemplate granting of a relief to a debtor as defined in the Act. The definition of the word “Debt” in the Act is wide enough to take in money claims, the mortgage claims, as well as claims arising out of the pledges, etc. 10. The above mentioned provisions of the Act referred above clearly contemplate granting of a relief to a debtor as defined in the Act. The definition of the word “Debt” in the Act is wide enough to take in money claims, the mortgage claims, as well as claims arising out of the pledges, etc. Though the definition of the word “debt” is wide in the sense that it contemplates a variety of indebtendness, secured or unsecured, yet, with reference to money claims, the provision of the Act or the rules do to con template the Tahsildar as an authority constituted under the Act to adjudicate upon such claims. The relief available to a debtor under section 4(1)(e) of the Act is worked out by an application under Section 5 of the Act and by Rules 3 and 9 framed under the Act. Likewise, the relief in cases falling under section 4(1)(f) of the Act is worked out for resorting to section 6 of the Act and Rules 3 and 10 framed thereunder. But in cases falling under Section 4(1)(a) to (d) of the Act there is no machinery provided at all to investigate the claim of the person that he is the debtor entitled to the benefits of the Act and to adjudicate thereon and make available relief from indebtendness or arrest as the case may be. No Rules also have been framed relating to this aspect. Statutorily, therefore, Tahsildar has been constituted a functionary to work out relief only with reference to matters falling under sections 5 and 6 of the Act dealing with the pledge of movable property and mortgages. The Tahsildar functioning under the provisions of the Act has not been in any manner empowered to deal with claims arising in suits on promissory notes or decrees for recovery of money before the civil courts. While interpreting the very same sections and in similar circumstances, this Court in a judgment reported in Perumal v. Chinna Kuppanna Gounder (94 L.W. 317) has expressed the same view. In view of the legal positions set out earlier, the certificate issued by the Tahsildar under Ex. B-1 without notice to the creditor, arising in money claims is unacceptable and the conclusion of the lower appellate court in this regard is perfectly in order. In view of the legal positions set out earlier, the certificate issued by the Tahsildar under Ex. B-1 without notice to the creditor, arising in money claims is unacceptable and the conclusion of the lower appellate court in this regard is perfectly in order. Moreover, the lower appellate court, on the basis of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the defendant is owning 5 acres of lands with A well and pumpset. Hence the lower appellate court held that the income would be more than Rs. 4800/- per year and the value of the properties owned by the defendant would be more than Rs. 25,000/-. 11. In view of the fact that the Tahsildar is not competent to issue certificate in respect of money claims under the provisions of Act 13 of 80 as discussed above and in the light of the factual findings by the lower appellate court that the defendant is having property worth more than Rs. 25000/-, and annual income of more than Rs. 4,800 I am in entire agreement with the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Vellore Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.