The petitioner herein seeks a writ of certiorari from this Court, quashing the order of the second respondent, dated 31st March, 1981 confirming the order of the third respondent, dated 21st July, 1980 holding that the fourth respondent herein is entitled to the benefit of section 6 of Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980.

2. The petitioner herein had advanced a sum of Rs. 15,000 on a house property owned by one Alagappa Pillai. The said Alagappa Pillai had sold the said house property to the fourth respondent for Rs. 31,500. In the sale deed executed by Alagappa Pillai in favour of the fourth respondent, the mortgage amount payable to the petitioner had been deducted out of the sale consideration, as the fourth respondent had been directed to discharge the mortgage. That the mortgage amount payable to the petitioner had been retained by the fourth respondent out of the sale consideration, is not in dispute. After the purchase, the fourth respondent, who has retained a sum of Rs. 15,000 representing the entire mortgage amount with him, out of the sale consideration, has filed an application under section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980 for a certificate of discharge of the mortgage, on the ground that he comes within the definition of debtor as defined in the. In the said application, he has claimed that his annual household income is less than Rs. 4,800 and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of the. The said application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the sum of Rs. 15,000 payable by the fourth respondent represented a portion of the purchase price which has been retained by him for payment to the petitioner as a mortgagee, and as the said amount is a portion of the purchase price, he is exempted from the provisions of the, and therefore, whether the fourth respondent is a debtor or not under the, the debt in question is not liable to be discharged. In view of the fact that the petitioner sought exemption of this debt from the provisions of the, he did not adduce evidence as regards the value of the property purchased by the fourth respondent and on the question whether the worth of the property will disentitle him from claiming the benefits under the.

3. Both the initial authority and the appellate authority have gone into the question whether the fourth respondents annual income is less than Rs. 4,800, and whether the fourth respondent is a debtor as defined in the, and after holding that the annual income of the fourth respondent is less than 4,800, they have proceeded to grant the relief sought for by the fourth respondent without going into the question whether the debt in question represents the purchase price of the property purchased by the fourth respondent and whether such a debt is excluded from the provisions of the.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the debt in respect of which a certificate of discharge is sought for by the fourth respondent, is a debt falling within section 12 (i) ofXIII of 1980, which runs as follows

"Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following categories of debts and liabilities of a debtor, namely:

(i) any debt which represents the price of property whether movable or immovable purchased by a debtor or any amount due under a hire purchase agreement...."

From the facts set out above, it will be clear that a sum of Rs. 15,000 which is payable to the petitioner by the original mortgagor Alagappa Pillai, has been undertaken to be paid by the fourth respondent, the vendee, and he has also retained the said sum of Rs. 15,000 out of the sale consideration or purchase money payable by him towards the purchase of the mortgage property. That the sum of Rs. 15,000 represents a part of the purchase price, is not disputed by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. But, what is contended on his behalf is that the debt does not represent a portion of the purchase money payable to the petitioner as the property has not been purchased from him.

5. Section 12 (i) merely says that if the debt represents the price of property, purchased by a debtor, that is exempted from the provisions, of the. It does not refer to the person who is seeking to recover the debt. According to the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, it is only when the vendor seeks to recover the balance of the purchase price, that provision will come into operation and not when a third party to the contract of purchase files a suit for recovery of the part of the price, If the contention of the learned counsel is accepted, even the assignee of a debt representing the purchase price of a property will not get the benefit of the exemption provision contained in section 12 (i). The said provision exempting the debt representing the portion of the purchase price of the property purchased by a debtor is intended to see that the debtor does not make an unjust gain by withholding the price of the property purchased by him, taking advantage of the provisions of the. In this case, the fourth respondent has retained the sum of Rs. 12,000 out of the sale consideration payable by him to the vendor and he has undertaken to discharge the liability of the vendor to pay the said mortgage amount of Rs. 15,000. If the fourth respondent does not discharge his obligation of paying Rs. 15,000 to the mortgagee, the petitioner herein, the vendor, can file a suit and recover the entire amount of Rs. 15,000, notwithstanding the provisions of Act XIII of 1980. Therefore, the fourth respondent who has undertaken to discharge the liability to pay Rs. 15,000 on behalf of his vendor, cannot now take advantage of the

provisions of the, ignoring the provisions in section 12 (i). If the provision in section 12 (I) is restricted to a claim made only by the vendor himself, the object of that provision which, as we said, is to see that the debtor does not make an unlawfnl or unjust gain by withholding the price of the property, will be completely defeated. In this view of the matter, we have to hold that the fourth respondent is not entitled to claim the benefit of section 6 of the Act, in view of the exemption provision contained in section 12 (i).

6. Therefore, the writ petition has to be and is accordingly allowed and the orders of both the second respondent and the third respondent are quashed. There will be no order as to costs.