Judgment : 1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 281 of 1978 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore is the appellant in the above appeal. He filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.6, 083 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:- On 2. 76 the defendant on receipt of Rs.6, 000 executed a promisory note in favour of the plaintiff payable with interest at 12 per cent per annum. Since the defendant is an agriculturist, interest is claimed only at 6 per cent. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount, hence filed the present suit. 3. The defendant filed a written statement wherein he has admitted the execution of the suit promissory note, but denied the receipt of consideration. He contended that for various sums borrowed a pronote was executed for a sum of Rs.6, 000 on 2. 2.1975 for which he paid interest at 12 per cent and also portion of the principal amount. The plaintiff insisted on a fresh pronote for the balance of the amount due under the pronote dated 2. 1975, for which the suit pronote was executed. In the additional written statement, he has also claimed benefits under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980. In support of the plaintiff’s case, one Shanmugham was examined as P.W.1 and Kannayiram Chettiar was examined as P.W.1 and Kannayiram Chettiar was examined as P.W.2. Exs. A-1 to A-3 were marked. On the other hand, defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and Exs. B-1 to B-9 were marked. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, after framing necessary issues and on the basis of the evidence on record in view of the benefits under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980, dismissed the suit without costs. 5. Against the dismissal of the suit, plaintiff has filed appeal in A.S.No.63 of 1981 before the District Court, Cuddalore. The appellate Judge, on the basis of the evidence on record and in the light of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act referred above, confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Against the concurrent findings of the courts below, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the present appeal before this Court. The appellate Judge, on the basis of the evidence on record and in the light of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act referred above, confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Against the concurrent findings of the courts below, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the present appeal before this Court. While entertaining the second appeal this court has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration:- “Whether the life interest holder in the agricultural land is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980?” 7. In the light of the substantial question of law framed, Mr. R.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that whether the defendant being only a life interest holder in the agricultural land is entitled to the benefits under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). According to him, the said legal question has not been properly considered by the courts below and seeks interference in this appeal. On the other hand, Mr.V.Narayanaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the life interest holder cannot be equated with that of the full owner, this position having been considered by both the courts below, there is no merit in the second appeal and prays for dismissal of the same. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 8. Except the applicability of the benefits of the Act, no other point was pressed into service before the courts below. Hence it is not necessary to refer the other factual aspects. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the house bearing door No.50 the defendant is having right to enjoy till his life time and thereafter to be taken absolutely by his son and sister and hence he must be deemed to come within the provisions introduced in Ordinance 11 of 1980 as the person owning property of a market value exceeding Rs.25, 000. Admittedly, the said house is worth about Rs.40, 000. We are concerned with Section 3(d) and (vi) of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980. Admittedly, the said house is worth about Rs.40, 000. We are concerned with Section 3(d) and (vi) of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980. Section 3(d) defines ‘debtor’ as follows:- “Sec.3(d) “debtor” means any person from whom any debt is due and whose annual house-hold income does not exceed four thousand and eight hundred rupees:” Sub-clause (vi) to Section 3 reads as follows: - (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.” Admittedly the defendant is having only a right to enjoy the property till his life time and the ultimate dispossession is in favour of his son and sister. It is also brought to my notice that the son and sister of the defendant filed claim petition claiming title which was allowed and the said order was confirmed by this court in a civil revision proceedings. Under the Will Ex.B-9 the absolute title is vested on the defendant’s sister and her enjoyment is postponed. We have to find the proper meaning for the word ‘own’ mentioned in sub-clause (vi) of the said Act. The reading of preamble and object of the Act clearly show that the same was brought in order to provide relief to certain indebted persons in the State of Tamil Nadu from the usurious practices of pawn brokers, moneylenders and other non-institutional sources of credit and to give relief from the debts due to such pawnbrokers, money-lenders and other non- institutional sources of credit. Taking into account the avowed object of the Act that is to provide relief to the indebted persons and to give relief from the debts, it is but proper to give an interpretation to proviso to sub-clause (vi) to Section 3(d) of the Act consistent with that object. 9. As rightly pointed out, there is a lot of difference between person who owns properties and who holds properties. When the above referred provision contemplates that the person who owns immovable properties, the Act confers benefits on persons who owns properties and not holds properties. Under Ex.B-9 the defendant is only life estate holder and he cannot said to be a person who owns property. In other words, he holds properties for his life with vested remainder to his son and sister. Under Ex.B-9 the defendant is only life estate holder and he cannot said to be a person who owns property. In other words, he holds properties for his life with vested remainder to his son and sister. Hence the defendant cannot said to be a person who owns properties. 10. Even though there is no direct decision cited at the Bar, the Dictionary meaning of the word “own” is to have a good legal title to, or to hold as a property. The owner of a property is one, who has an absolute dominion over it and in regard to which he has right to do so as he pleases. In that sense ownership of a life estate holder in a property is only confined to his or her life interest in the said property. The life estate holder cannot mortgage, alienate or other-wise to do anything to destroy or affect the interest of the remainder man/woman. The property owned by such a life estate holder is only his or her interest in that property. 11. In view of the above position, the judgment of the courts below in which the learned Judges have also taken the same view, cannot said to be either erroneous or improper. No other point has been raised by any of the parties. I am in entire agreement with the views expressed by the courts below. The net result the substantial question of law framed earlier is answered in the negative. I do not find any substance in the second appeal and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.