Judgment : 1. This reference has been referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No. 1499 of 1985 and had come before us. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the reference are: One Murugesan Pillai executed a promissory note. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount due on the said promissory note against the legal representatives of the said Murugesan Pillai, since died. The suit was resisted stating that the suit filed was time barred. It was further pleaded that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 13 of 1980) 3. The trial Court on consideration held that the suit is not time barred and that the defendants have property worth more than Rs. 25,000 and that they are not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. On an appeal, filed by the defendants, the finding regarding execution of the decree was upheld. However, it was held that the defendants are entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 as they constitute three different families. The plaintiff filed the second appeal, against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court. The question was whether the defendants are entitled to the benefit of the Act. 4. On consideration the learned single Judge of this Court, found that the decision of a Single Judge in Lakshmi Ammal and others v. Sundaramurthy Chetti , 1984 (II) M.L.J. 47 was not brought to the notice of a Division Bench of this Court in S. Samuel Nadar and others v. St. K. VI. Veerappa Chettiar and another , 1986 (99) L.W. 266. The learned single Judge in his judgment referred to another judgment of a learned single judge in Karuppanan Devar v. S.R. Karuppiah Thevar , 1982 (I) MLJ 345 , wherein the learned single Judge has held that in case of two brothers who are judgment-debtors who owned a property jointly, their liability must be assessed on the basis of the income from the specific shares of each of them. 5. On these conflicting decisions, the learned single Judge referred the matter to the Full Bench for deciding “Whether the ruling in S. Samuel Nadar and others v. St. K. VI. 5. On these conflicting decisions, the learned single Judge referred the matter to the Full Bench for deciding “Whether the ruling in S. Samuel Nadar and others v. St. K. VI. Veerappa Chettiar and another , 1986 (99) L.W. 266; Karuppanna Thevar v. S.R. Karupiah Thevar , 1982 (I) MLJ 345 , that where more than one person are debtors and they jointly own a house property the entirety of the interest should be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether they are debtors within the meaning of the Act (Act 36 of 1972) is correct or not.” 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff/decree holder submitted that the reference made by the learned single Judge was not at all necessary. In the case Karuppanna Thevar v. S.R. Karupiah Thevar , 1982 (I) MLJ 345 two brothers are the judgment Debtors whereas in the case on hand the Legal Representatives represent the sole judgment Debtor. That apart, the learned single Judge is bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench wherein it was held that, “That shows that in a case where more than one person are the debtors and they jointly own a house property, the entirety of their interest should be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether they are debtors within the meaning of the Act. Further, the words ‘debtor’ and ‘person’ in Section 2(3) of the Act will have to be read as including ‘debtors’ and ‘persons’.” The learned counsel further submitted that the reliance made by the learned single Judge in Karuppanna Thevar v. S.R. Karupiah Thevar , 1982 (I) MLJ 345 and the decision in Lakshmi Ammal and others v. Sundaramurthy Chetti , 1984 (II) MLJ 47 , are not applicable to the facts of this case and the reference may be answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff/decree holder. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the defendants/legal representatives contended that the decision of the Division Bench in S. Samuel Nadar and others v. St. K. VI. Veerappa Chettiar and another , 1986 (99) L.W. 266, is not applicable to the case on hand, since the case was related to Act 38 of 1972. It is further submitted that the share of the each of the family members to be taken into account and as such, they are entitled to the benefit of Act 13 of 1980. Veerappa Chettiar and another , 1986 (99) L.W. 266, is not applicable to the case on hand, since the case was related to Act 38 of 1972. It is further submitted that the share of the each of the family members to be taken into account and as such, they are entitled to the benefit of Act 13 of 1980. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials on record. It is to be seen as to whether the legal representatives are entitled to get the benefit of Act 13 of 1980 as stated. 9. It is relevant to consider the definitions of the terms ‘debtor’, ‘person’ and ‘family’ and other relevant Sections of the Act. Section 2(7) of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1972 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1972), defines a ‘person’ as follows: “ ‘person’ means an individual and includes an undivided Hindu family, a marumakkattayam or aliyasantana tarward or tavazhi, but does not include a body corporate, a charitable or religious institution or an unincorporate company or association or any firm as defined in the Indian partnership Act, 1932 (Central Act 9 of 1932) As per Section 3(d) of Act of 1980, the term: “ ‘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— ...(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.” It is seen that the provisions of the act 38 of 1972 cited supra, and the provisions of Act 13 of 1980 mentioned above are pari materia. 10. A perusal of the definition reveals that a ‘debtor’ means an individual or a family. There is nothing to define... that a joint family or kartha can be defined under the term ‘debtor’. 11. No doubt, the legal representatives of a father, are entitled to agitate the controversy after the death of their father that as legal representatives they are also entitled to the benefit of Act 13 of 1980, as stated. There is nothing to define... that a joint family or kartha can be defined under the term ‘debtor’. 11. No doubt, the legal representatives of a father, are entitled to agitate the controversy after the death of their father that as legal representatives they are also entitled to the benefit of Act 13 of 1980, as stated. This proposition is also approved by the decision of the Full Bench in Kaliammal and 3 others v. Raghurama Gounder , 1989 (I) L.W. 253 . 12. In the instant case, the said Murugesan Pillai executed the promissory note while he and the L.R.’s were in joint family. There was no partition before the death of the said Murugesan Pillai. In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, Kaliammal and 3 others v. Raghurama Gounder , 1989 (I) L.W. 253 , wherein the husband and wife were the judgment Debtors, it was found that the two debtors viz. , both the husband and wife owned a building the annual rental value of which was Rs. 2,016, it was contended on behalf of the judgment Debtors that the annual rental value of each of the sharers will be less than Rs. 1, 200 and as such they will be entitled to the benefits of the Act. The Division Bench rejected the case of the debtors and accepted the arguments of the decree-holders holding as follows: ...”That shows that in a case where more than one person are the debtors and they jointly own a house property, the entirety of their interest should be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether they are debtors within the meaning of the Act. Further, the words ‘debtor’ and ‘person’ in Section 2(3) of the Act will have to be read as including ‘debtors’ and ‘persons’.” 13. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that if the original debtor father is entitled to the benefit of Act 13 of 1980, the legal representatives are also entitled to the said benefits, But, when the original debtors is not entitled to, then his legal representatives cannot agitate the issue on the basis that each of their shares to be taken into account. We are of the opinion that the view of the learned single Judge in Lakshmi Ammal and others v. Sundaramurthy Chetti , 1984 (II) MLJ 47 will not help the defendants /judgment debtors, in the facts of this case, so also the decision of the another learned single Judge holding that their liability to be assessed separately, on the basis of the share they got. 14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that if the original debtor is not entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980, the legal representatives who got the shares of the property of the father, after his death, are not entitled to get the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 on the basis of each of their shares. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the reference is answered accordingly, in favour of the decree holder. 15. Post the Second Appeal before the concerned Division Bench.