N G VENKATARATHNAM Vs. N S NAGENDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the decree-holder and is directed against the judgment dated 10-1-1977 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge Bangalore City in Ex. A. No. 60 of 1976 on his file allowing appeal instituted by the Judgment-debtor, on setting aside the order passed by the Munsiff, (Executing Court) on 7-10-1976 in Ex. No. 406 of 1976, on his file. The decree-holder sought execution of the decree obtained by him in O. S. No. 1676 of 1967 for Rs. 7001, with costs and interest against the judgment-debtor in Ex No. 406 of 1976 before the learned Munsiff. The judgment-debtor raised several contentions. One of them was that he was a debtor within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that he was entitled to relief contemplated under S. 4 of the Act. The learned Munsiff disallowed that contention The judgment-debtor went up in appeal before the learned Civil Judge, who on hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the decree amounted to a debt advanced within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 and in that view he allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the learned Munsiff with a direction that he should allow the judgment-debtor to raise the contention that he is a debtor under the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the decree-holder has come up in appeal before this Court.

(2.) The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Civil Judge grievously erred in law in holding that the judgment-debtor could raise the contention contemplated under S. 4 of the Act. According to him, the decree amount could not be considered as a debt advanced for the purpose of S. 4 of the Act. Further, if it amounted to a debt advanced, |it fell, according to him, in the exception contemplated under S. 8(h) of the Act. As against this, the learned Advocate appearing for the judgment-debtor-respondent argued supporting the reasoning of the learned Civil Judge.

(3.) Thus, the appeal involves a short, but, interesting point of law as to whether the present decretal amount could be termed as ' debt advanced ' as contemplated under S.4 of the Act. It appears that the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor were partners of a firm. The firm was dissolved and while settling the accounts, it was agreed that the judgment-debtor should pay Rs. 7001, to the decree-holder and it is with regard to that amount, that a decree was obtained and the same was put into execution by the decree-holder. The learned Advocate appearing for the decree-holder submitted that the amount settled could not be treated as ' debt advanced ' within the meaning of S. 4 of the Act. According to him, the word ' advance' meant lent'. Hence, he submitted that since the decree-holder did not lend this amount as such to the judgment-debtor, the same was not covered within the meaning of' debt advanced ' in S. 4 of the Act. In order to interpret the words 'debt advanced' used in S.4 of the Act, it is necessary to read the definition of the term 'debt' given in S. 3(b) of the Act It reads ; 'debt' means any liability in cash or in kind, whether decreed or not and includes any amount which is in substance a debt ; but does not include arrears of taxes due to the Central or the State Government or a local authority." Then we have the relevant S. 4 which reads.