MAYANKUTTY Vs. BAPPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that is raised in this Second Appeal concerns the applicability of the provisions of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act 11 of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the debt under the decree which is sought to be executed. Appellants are the judgment debtors under a decree obtained on the strength of a pronote. The pronote was executed by the appellants, who are defendants in the suit, in favour of one Abdutty. It was for Rs. 2000/-. Out of this, Rs. 1500/- has been paid. The balance amount of Rs. 500/- was not paid and that and interest was due. The pronote was endorsed in favour of the plaintiff in the suit by Abdutty on 10 8 1968 and the suit was filed as an endorsee of the pronote to recover the money claimed under the pronote. That ' suit was decreed and it is in execution of that decree that the appellants, as judgment debtors, sought to discharge the decree debt in instalments under Act 11 of 1970. This was allowed by the Munsiff who held that the debt comes within the definition of 'debt' in the Act. Therefore the execution petition was struck off. This was reversed by the appellate Judge before whom the decree holder filed an appeal, that court holding that the debt comes under the exemption in S.2(iv)(g) of the said Act. It is that which is challenged in the appeal by the judgment debtors.

(2.) The pronote was executed in favour of Abdutty in lieu of amount due to him as balance of consideration under the sale deed executed by him in favour of the appellants. The amount was not reserved in the sale deed itself to be paid later. The sale deed showed that the consideration under the deed had been discharged. But actually on the same day a pronote for Rs. 2000/-was executed in favour of the vendor by the vendees. In these circumstances could it be said that the debt is a liability "for which a charge is provided under sub clause (b) of clause (4) of S.55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882" which is exempted from the definition of a debt The further question is even assuming it to be so, could it be said of a "debt" due to an endorsee of the pronote.

(3.) S.2(iv)(g) of the Act corresponds to S.2(c)(vii) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958: I have to refer to two decisions of this Court in which the scope of this sub-section was considered. It is just to indicate that what is contemplated by the sub-section is not the actual subsistence of a charge under S.55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, but only a category of liability for which a charge is provided in sub clause (b) of clause (4) of S.55 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was held by this Court in Pathrose v. Bhanu ( 1961 KLT 373 ) thus: