R. Rangaraju vs The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others

Ramanujam, J.—The third Respondent herein filed an application before the second Respondent for relief u/s 5(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act

XIII of 1980 in respect of certain gold Articles said to have been pledged by him with the Petitioner. The Petitioner resisted the said application on

the ground that there was no pledge at all and that the receipt produced by the third Respondent was not true and genuine. Having regard to the

controversy, the second Respondent held that since the existence of the debt as well as the pledge is disputed by the Petitioner, who is stated to be

the creditor, the matter has to be agitated before the civil Court. However, when the matter was taken to the appellate authority, the first

Respondent herein, be held that the authorities constituted under the Act can go into the question as to whether there was in fact a pledge or not

and that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the third Respondent, that there was a pledge, the third Respondent is entitled to a direction for

the return of the alleged pledged Articles u/s 5(2)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved against the Order of the appellate authority the Petitioner has filed the

present Petition.

According to the Petitioner, the debtor himself has filed a suit for the return of the alleged pledged jewels on the ground that he is entitled to the

benefits of Act XIII of 1980, that in that suit the existence or otherwise of the pledge can be gone into, that the Tahsildar, the second Respondent

herein, who is functioning under the Act, cannot go into the disputed question as to whether in fact there was a pledge or not, and that only in cases

where the pledge is admitted, the second Respondent can go into question of its discharge. We are inclined to agree with the contention of the

learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Where a debtor alleges the existence of a pledge and claim relief under the provisions of the Act and the other

party contends that there is no pledge at all and no amount is due to him under the pledge, such controversy between the parties not be gone into

by the Tahsildar. It is only in cases where the pledge is admitted, the Tahsildar can go into the question as to whether the debt for which the pledge

has been made has been discharged or not. As in this case where the existence of the pledge itself is in dispute, the matter has to be agitated by the

so called debtor before the civil Court in a regular suit. As a matter of fact, in this case, the third Respondent has filed Original Petition No. 97 of

1980, Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli for permission to sue the Petitioner in forma pauperis for the return of the pledged jewels and in that Petition he has

been directed to pay the necessary Court-fee. The third Respondent can, therefore, agitate the question relating to the existence of the pledge in

those proceedings by paying the necessary Court-fee. Even, if Original Petition No. 97 of 1980 has been dismissed for non-payment of Court-fee,

the third Respondent can approach the Court with an offer to pay the Court-fee and have that suit restored for getting a decision from a civil Court

on the question of the existence of the pledge.

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the Order of the appellate authority is set aside. There will be no Order as to costs.