(1.) The Decree holders filed a suit in O.S. No. 31/1973 on the file of the Munsiff, Muddebihal, for specific performance of an agreement to sell entered into by the judgment-debtor. The said agreement to sell was dated 16-7-1970. The Munsiff, decreed the suit for specific performance. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal. The Appellate Court modified the decree by refusing to grant specific performance but it only awarded the refund of the amount paid under the agreement. The Appellate Court passed a decree on 19-3-1977. The decree-holders sued out the execution to recover Rs. 12,501-75, in pursuance of the decree passed by the Appellate Court.
(2.) The Judgment-debtor raised a contention that she was a debtor within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 76) and that the amount in question amounted to a debt within the meaning of the Act of 1976 and therefore under Section 4 of the Act of 1976 the said debt stood discharged and that she was not liable to pay the amount in question and thus she prayed for the dismissal of the execution.
(3.) In the Trial Court, a memo was filed by the Counsel for the decree holders that the judgment debtor is a person belonging to the weaker sections of the society having an income of less than Rs. 2400/- per year. But what was objected to by the decree holder was that, the amount in question did not amount to a debt within the meaning of the Act of 1976.