Judgment : Plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit claim contending that the defendant who is his brother, borrowed 10,000 dollars from him while they were at Malaysia and repaid 3,100 dollars on three different dates and even though he has filed a suit in Malaysia in Civil Action No. 1816 of 1978 in the Sessions Court at Kuala-lumpur and obtained a decree on account of the default of appearance by the defendant, he has filed the suit at Devakottai on the original cause of action since the defendant had executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the amount borrowed, which could not be executed in India on account of the fact that the decree passed against the defendant was on account of the default of appearance by the defendant. 3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit is not maintainable at Devakottai, the defendant is entitled to the benefits of Act 15 of 1976 and Act 17 of 1976 and the calculation made on Indian currency value is not correct. 4. In the additional written statement filed by him, the defendant has claimed benefits under Act 13 of 1980. It was contended that the suit debt is deemed to have been discharged under Sec.4(c) of the Act. 5. In the second additional written statement filed by him, the defendant has contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff in India for recovery of the amount borrowed by him at Malaysia is in violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and therefore not maintainable. 6. The plaintiff has filed a reply statement stating that the defendant is not entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980, since he comes under the Exception to the word "debtor" under the said Act. 7. The trial court has held that the suit is maintainable in India, it is not in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and the defendant is entitled to the benefits under the Act 15 of 1976 and Act 17 of 1976 and yet ultimately dismissed the suit holding that the defendant is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 also. 8. 8. The plaintiff has come forward with this appeal aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit on the finding of the trial court that the defendant is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the trial court which has held that the defence raised by the defendant on the ground that the borrowing was in Malaysia and plaintiff has to seek his remedy only at Malaysia and that the filing of this suit in India is in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, are not sustainable, has dismissed the suit holding that the defendant is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and it is erroneous. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the respondent- defendant is not a debtor as per the Amended Act 13 of 1980 and the trial court has taken into consideration that the income from the properties of the defendant has not been shown as more than Rs.4,800 and it is erroneous, since the trial court has not taken into consideration the provisos (vi) and (vii) to Sec.3(d) of the Amended Act, which provide that where the debtor is shown to have properties worth more than Rs.25,000 value, the debtor cannot be considered as a person entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and the trial court has failed to take this aspect into consideration. 10. Sec.3(d) of Act 13 of 1980 is as follows: "(d) debtor’ means any person from whom any debt is due and whose annual household income does not exceed four thousand and eight hundred rupees: Provided that a person shall not be deemed to be a debtor if he or any member of his family- (i)..... (ii)..... (iii) ..... (iv)..... (v).... (vi) whether individually or jointly owns in this State or elsewhere any other immovable property (other than agricultural lands), the market value of which exceeds twenty-five thousand rupees, (vii) whether individually or jointly owns in this State or elsewhere both agricultural lands and other immovable property, the market value of both such agricultural lands and other immovable property exceeds twenty-five thousand rupees." 11. The plaintiff has sought attachment of the properties of the defendant in LA. No.259 of 1980. The plaintiff has sought attachment of the properties of the defendant in LA. No.259 of 1980. In the counter to the said application, the respondent viz., the defendant has stated that the property sought to be attached are worth more than Rs. 1,50,000 and they have been grossly under valued. To demonstrate the same, he has stated that item No.3 Chinnakulavapchei has been valued by the petitioner at Rs. 1,800 when it has already been othied by him one year ago for Rs.4,500 which will prove that the land is worth much more. This counter-affidavit of the respondent-defendant in I. A. No.259 of 1980 shows that the properties owned by the defendant are work much more than the ceiling limit provided in proviso (vi), since even according to him, it is worth Rs. 1,50,000 when the ceiling is only for Rs.25,000. In view of the fact that the properties owned by the defendant are worth more than Rs. 1,50,000 even, according to him, the defendant cannot claim to be a debtor as per Act 13 of 1980 and his claim for the benefits under the Act 13 of 1980 cannot be accepted. But the trial court has held that the defendant is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and dismissed the suit. In view of the Amended Act X of 1981, the defendant is not entitled to the benefits of Act 13/1980, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court are therefore liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.40,919 with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of plaint till date of realisation. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.