BERNAD AUGUSTINE BERNAD AUGUSTINE Vs. K KRISHNAN KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this C.R.P. the decree holder seeks revision of an order permitting the respondent, who is the legal representative of the 3rd defendant, to discharge the decree debt under S.4 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 (which will be referred to herein below as the Act). The contention is that the respondent having sold away the decree schedule property and having no personal liability is not a debtor and therefore cannot invoke the Act to his aid. The court below found that as per the definition in S.2(c) of the Act any debt incurred by an agriculturist, whether the debtor who is liable to pay it at the commencement of the Act be an agriculturist or not, comes within the scope of the Act, that S.4 does not limit the benefits thereof to agriculturist-debtors, and that therefore the respondent is entitled to have the debt discharged under S.4 of the Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner decree holder contends that only an agriculturist-debtor can invoke the benefits of S.4 of the Act. He relies on the preamble to the Act Whereas it is considered necessary to provide for the relief of indebted agriculturists in the State of Kerala; Be it enacted. ....... and contends that the Act is intended only to provide relief to agriculturists and cannot be extended in its operation to any other class of debtors. I am unable to accept this contention.

(3.) The preamble of an Act is never understood to control its enacting part. Whatever may have been the intention of the legislature expressed in the preamble, if the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, they have to be enforced according to their plain meaning. Unless there be any ambiguity in the meaning of a particular provision in the Act, the preamble cannot be referred to restrict or enlarge the plain meaning of that provision. It may be that even in providing for relief of agriculturists indebtedness the Legislature may have deliberately provided for relief of some other debtors also. It is not rarely that we come across statutes with their enacting parts extending beyond the ambit of the respective preambles. In construing a statute we must assume that the Legislature has said what it meant & meant exactly what it has said in the statute,