KUNJAMMALU Vs. SEKHARA MENON RAMAN MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the order passed by the District Munsiff of Parur in C.M.P. 801 of 1125 dated 20th Thulam 1125. The order runs as follows - "Heard both sides. The debt sought to be discharged is a decree debt. Six per cent of the debt as it stood on 31.1.1116 was paid as 1st instalment. All the other instalment payments are less than 6% of the debt. The defendant is not therefore entitled to any reduction of the debt as per provisions of the Debt Relief Act. THIS petition is therefore dismissed."

(2.) THIS short order does not reveal either the facts of the case or the real dispute between the parties. The facts are these:- The respondent obtained a decree in O.S. 219 of 1114 on the file of the District Munsiff, Parur against the defendant Konnan, since deceased, for recovery of a principal amount of Rs. 700, interest and costs by sale of certain items of immovable properties secured therefore, as also from the defendant personally. The decree is dated 14th Meenom 1114. Execution having been applied for, the judgment-debtor applied by C.M.P. 7330 of 1115 for stay thereof on the ground that he had applied to the Debt Conciliation Board. The court allowed stay of execution pending conciliation. The order of the Board which is in the file, shows that it could not deal with the matter because the total amount of the debts far exceeded the Board's jurisdiction, the debt due to one creditor being about Rs. 10,000 and there were as many as 15 creditors in all. The order is dated 9th Ani 1115. Soon after, the Travancore Debt Relief Act (Act II of 1116) was passed on 31st Chingom 1116. On 6th Kumbhom 1116 the judgment-debtor applied by C.M.P. 1696 of 1116 stating that the proposed to avail himself of the provisions of Ss. 8 and 9 of that Act and that execution may therefore be stayed for six months to enable him to pay the first instalment of the debt. No objection was raised to this petition which was accordingly allowed on 27th Vrischigom 1116. The first instalment was deposited in court on 26th Vrischigom 1116. The amount deposited was 80 Br. Rs. It was admitted that this would be 6 per cent of the debt as on the commencement of the Act. Thereafter, the judgment-debtor and, after his death, his legal representatives who are impleaded as judgment-debtors 2 to 8 (2 of whom are the appellants in this appeal), made payment either into the hands of the decree-holder outside court or by deposit in court on 14 occasions. The amount on each occasion was Rs. 70 and the last payment thus made was on 29th Kumbhom 1124. Memos are seen to have been filed by the decree-holder in court accepting the aforesaid payments as payments made under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act and as for specific instalments contemplated by the said Act. There is no indication in any of these anywhere either that the amount paid on each instalment was short of the amount payable, or that on account of any default of payment the debtor forfeited his rights to the concession given to him by the Act and that the whole decree debt had become payable.

(3.) THE question for consideration is whether notwithstanding the fact that 80 per cent of the debt as on the date of the coming into force of the Debt Relief Act, has been paid within 9 years as contemplated by S. 9(1), the irregularities in the payment of instalments, complained of by the decree-holder are such as to make the payments made inoperative to give relief to the debtor and to enable the decree-holder to recover the balance of the decree debt.