JUDGMENT
Raju, J.
1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendant, who has failed through out, against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 75 of 1982, dated 21.10.1982 (District Court A.S. No. 78 of 1982), confirming the judgment and decree of the learned II Additional Munsif, Tiruchy, dated 28.1.1982, in O.S. No. 165 of 1981. The respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S. No. 165 of 1981 for redemption of the mortgage dated 8.8.1974 and for possession of the mortgaged property and for future profits. The plaintiff appears to have executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the defendant on 8.8.1974 for Rs. 7,000 in respect of the plaint schedule property; that the plaintiff also has put the defendant in possession of the same in lieu of interest and the document stipulated a period of six years for redemption. The plaintiff, claiming to be an agriculturist and a debtor under the definition of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979, staked his claim under Section 9 and for an order that he is entitled to redeem the property after paying to the mortgagee the difference between the principal amount secured by the mortgage and an amount bearing to the principal amount for the same proportion as the period during which the mortgagee has been in possession bears to 10 years. On the basis that the defendant was in continuous possession of the property from 8.8.1974 onwards for a period of 6 years and 6 months, the amount came to be worked out as Rs. 2,510 and the plaintiff issued a notice expressing his preparedness to pay the mortgage amount without prejudice to his right and seeking for redemption. Since the defendant did not respond, the plaintiff has filed the suit, on depositing the sum of Rs. 2,510 to which alone the defendant is entitled to.
2. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefits of either Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 or Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979; that the properties as well as the house owned by him go to show that he has properties worth more than Rs. 20,000 and therefore, unless he pays the entire othi amount, he is not entitled to redemption. The defendant also claimed for the recovery of Rs. 50 towards electrical charges said to have been paid by the defendant.
3. On the above claims and counter-claims oral and documentary evidence was adduced by both parties and the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 and that the amount of Rs. 2,510 deposited by him represent the correct amount due to the defendant under the mortgage in question, and therefore decreed the suit with costs, as prayed for. Aggrieved the defendant filed an appeal before the Sub Court in A.S. No. 75 of 1982 and the learned first appellate Judge, on an elaborate consideration of the matter, confirmed the findings of the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. Hence the above second appeal.
4. Mr. M.N. Muthukumaran learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the courts below committed a grave error of law in merely relying upon the certificates and materials produced by the plaintiff to substantiate his claim that he is entitled to the benefits of the debt relief legislation in question and according to the learned Counsel the courts below ought not to have placed reliance upon the same in the absence of positive proof of the contents by examining the very authors of the documents or proceedings relied upon and this having not been done, the suit ought to have been dismissed. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979 and also invited by attention to the findings of the courts below and contended that they do not reflect the correct position of law. Learned Counsel for the respondent adopted the reasons assigned by the courts below in support of the reliefs granted and contended that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below are unassailable and do not call for any interference in this second appeal.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. In my view, the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant do not merit countenance. The provisions of Sections 26,27 and 28 of the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 enable the creditor or the debtor concerned to apply for and obtain the relevant records or certificates as found noticed in those provisions for the purposes of the Act. The provisions also stipulate that the certificates so obtained shall be conclusive proof of the facts stated therein. The courts below have chosen to rely upon the said statutory provisions and also the certificates made available on behalf of the plaintiff to adjudicate the issue as to whether the plaintiff was a debtor within the meaning of the provisions of the Act for claiming the benefits thereunder. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 defines the word “debtor” for the purposes of the Act to mean any person from whom any debt is due and the proviso enacts that a person shall not be deemed to be a debtor if any one of the stipulations contained in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) are found to be satisfied. A perusal of the definition of “debtor” under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 as also the definition of “debtor” under Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 would demonstrate a marked and conspicuous difference and distinction in that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 renders ineligible a debtor to claim benefits under the said Act in addition to the other stipulations contained in the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 even when such debtor’s annual house-holding income exceeds Rs. 4,800 and he either individually or jointly owns in this State or elsewhere agricultural lands exceeding 10 acres of unirrigated or 5 acres of irrigated lands or he owns individually or jointly in this State or elsewhere any other immovable property other than the agricultural lands the market value of which exceeds Rs. 25,000 or both agricultural lands and other immovable properties of the value exceeding Rs. 25,000. The courts below have adverted to all these aspects and held that so far as the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1979 is concerned, the holding or possession of properties either other than agricultural property alone or both agricultural and non-agricultural properties of the value of more than Rs. 25,000 is wholly an irrelevant factor, immaterial for determining the eligibility of a debtor to claim the benefits under the Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1979 unlike adjudication of such a claim made under Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980. In my view of exception, no execution could be taken to the above conclusions arrived at by both the courts below and they are quite in accordance with law and cannot be said to be either unwarranted or vitiated for any valid or reasonable ground.
6. The contention of the learned Counsel that in the absence of examining the persons who issued the certificates relied upon by the plaintiff to prove their contents, no reliance can be placed on the same cannot be maintained or accepted as the provisions gland stands. Equally, the further claim that the assessment of the value does not represent the correct valuation, but the property has been under assessed is also one which cannot be entertained before a civil court. The assessment of annual valuation or annual letting value are not effected by authorities discharging duties under the District Municipalities Act and other similar and parallel enactments for the purposes of the debt relief legislations in question. On the other hand, such assessments are under the provisions of those Acts and in accordance with the rules made thereudner and it is only on account of the same, finality is attached to the facts found stated therein since otherwise the very purpose of such assessments also would be defeated by permitting collateral challenge. If only the authorities who were concerned under those Acts and whose task was to assess the properties as visualised both under Section 26 as well as under Section 27 are to be summoned every time to prove the contents, it will not only result in dislocation of the normal work of those officers functioning under different enactments, but the civil courts while adjudicating any claims under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 1979 cannot be conferred with authority to collaterally interfere with the correctness of conclusions arrived at or assessment made by the competent authorities, under the relevant laws governing such assessment. For purposes of those Acts which subject to the avenues of challenge provided under those acts are rendered final. Accepting the submission on behalf of the appellant would lead to counter productive results and confusion besides being really against public interest and consequently the claim that without examining the persons who issued the certificates concerned they cannot be relied upon do not appeal to me as having any merit of acceptance. Consequently, the said plea is rejected. Equally untenable and liable to be rejected is the plea that the civil courts must go into the claim that the assessment made by the authorities under the respective laws do not constitute correct or proper assessment, but they are unreasonable and arbitrary or cases of actual under assessment. It is contended to substantiate this claim of the appellant that the house property of plaintiff could not have been assessed to the value as shown in the certificate but really the property deserved to be valued more for the purposes of levy of property tax. This endeavour and exercise cannot be allowed to be made and performed by the civil courts, at any rate while dealing with the claims for reliefs under the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 or for that matter any other debt relief legislation concerned. The certificates or the demands showing the assessment by the competent authorities under the respective laws are binding on the courts while dealing with claims under the debt laws, having regard to the collusiveness attained to the facts found stated therein.
7. That apart, so far as the case on hand is concerned, the palintiff/debtor has, in order to substantiate his claim that he is entitled to the benefits under the Act, has produced some relevant and vital materials. Per contra, the defendant has not taken any steps to controvert the same by producing any other material. As noticed earlier, the Act not only enables the debtor to obtain the relevant certificates or extracts of the assessment registers, but also enables the creditor to make an application and obtain and produce such relevant certificates. The defendant/appellant has not chosen to do any such things and to contend merely that the certificates produced are not in order or that they do not reflect the correct valuation de hors the fact that such valuation alone has been made and found noticed in the certificate is not an effective substitute for the materials placed on record, which had the acceptance of both the courts below, concurrently. It is for the debtor claiming benefits initially to prove prima facie his entitlement. Thereafter, the burden will necessarily shift on the defendant to substantiate his claim that the plaintiff/debtor is not entitled to the benefits as a debtor under the provisions of the particular enactment having regard to the exceptions provided therein by showing the existence of such relevant facts to apply those exceptions to the case on hand. The defendant/appellant has miserably failed on the facts of the case also to discharge his burden in that manner. Consequently, the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the courts below do not call for any interference in my hands in this second appeal. The appeal therefore fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs.