Judgment :- S. JAGADEESAN, J. Plaintiff in O.S. 76 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tuticorin is the applicant herein. He filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6000/- with interest on the basis of a promissory note executed by one Murugesan Pillai. Respondents are wife and children of the said Murugesan Pillai who died prior to filing the suit. Respondents raised two defences in the suit while filing written statement. One is that the deceased Murugesan Pillai did not execute the suit promissory note and the other is that they are entitled for the benefit of Act 13/80, the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act. The trial Court decreed the suit finding that the said Murugesan Pillai had executed the suit promissory note and the respondents herein are liable to discharge the said debt. The trial Court further negatived the claim of the respondents for the benefit of Debt Relief Act. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein preferred an appeal in A.S. 8 of 1984 on the file of the District Court, Tiurunelveli. The learned District Judge by his judgment and decree dated 5.2.1985 allowed the appeal finding that the respondents are entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Act. The learned District Judge further found that the defence taken by the respondent that Murugesan Pillai did not execute the suit promissory note cannot be believed and categorically found that the suit promissory note was executed by him. As the learned District Judge found that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Act, he has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. 2. The plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal against the decree of the lower appellate Court. 3. The respondents have taken the defence that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Murugesan Pillai and they are entitled to their respective shares from and out of the estate left by the said Murugesan Pillai and if the value of the shares that would devolve on the different branches of the respondents is taken into consideration, they would be entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Act since the value of the property would fall less than the amount prescribed under the Debt Relief Act to disentitle the benefit. The lower appellate Court had accepted the said contention of the respondents. The lower appellate Court had accepted the said contention of the respondents. In paragraph 10 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, the learned District Judge found that the property left by the deceased Murugesan Pillai is to the tune of Rs. 28,709.58. This has to be divided among the three branches and as such each branch will get a share to the value of Rs. 9569.86 which is far below of Rs. 25,000/- and as such the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Act. 4. When the Second Appeal was taken up for final disposal, on behalf of the appellant a contention was raised that the debt is one unit so far as the debtor is concerned and the legal representatives have to discharge the same by way of pious obligation and the debt cannot be divided among different branches of the deceased debtor. As there was difference of opinion among various judges and conflicting views had been expressed, Bellie, J by order dated 27.10.1992 has referred the question to the Full Bench as to whether the benefit of the Debt Relief Act can be claimed by the legal heirs of the debtor. The Full Bench heard the matter on 9.3.1999. One of us was the party to that Bench. After elaborately hearing counsel for both the sides, the Full Bench has decided (reported in 1992-2-L.W. 8) the issue as follows:— “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 debtor 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 1984II 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”. The Full Bench has held that only if the original debtor is entitled to benefit of the Debt Relief Act, the legal representatives can also claim the same. The Full Bench has held that only if the original debtor is entitled to benefit of the Debt Relief Act, the legal representatives can also claim the same. If the original debtor is not entitled to the benefit of the Act, it is not open to the legal representatives to claim the same. 5. In this case, the total value of the asset or property left by the debtor as found by the lower appellate Court is Rs. 28,709.58. As per Sec. 3(d)(vi) of Act 13/80, if the debtor individually or jointly owns immovable property other than agricultural lands, the market value of which exceeds Rs. 25,000/-, then, the debtor is not entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Act. As already stated, the lower appellate Court has found that the total value of the assets is Rs. 28,709.58 which more than the amount specified under the provisions of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also fairly represented that in view of the decision of the Full Bench, the respondents are not entitled for the benefit of the Debt Relief Act and the appeal has to be allowed. 7. The only question being whether the respondents are entitled for the benefit of Debt Relief Act or not which has been answered by the Full Bench negativing the claim of the j respondents, there is no need to discuss the facts elaborately in this Second Appeal. Hence, following the decision of the Full Bench given in the reference in the above Second Appeal, this Second Appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.