MATHAI Vs. AUGUSTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case and the questions for decision are given in the order of reference quoted below:

(2.) Except the provisions in S.12 and S.23 of the Debt Relief Acts II and III of 1116 (Travancore), the other directions and rules laid down in these Acts apply only when the debtor desires to discharge his liability either under S.8 and S.9 or under S.16. Those directions and rules could not therefore have any application in regard to debts which could have been discharged in the mode prescribed and which were not sought to be availed of by the debtor. S.23 is only an amendment of S.44 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Travancore) and so the effect of that section does not arise for consideration here. The effect of S.12 with reference to the present case will be dealt with hereafter.

(3.) It is the Explanation to S.3 that requires to be properly interpreted for purposes of this Appeal. It stated that where the debt incurred before 23-5-1112 has been renewed etc., such debt shall be deemed to be a debt to which this Act applies. The words "has been" indicate an accomplished fact. They do not indicate the renewal, inclusion or merger in a fresh document or decree on a future date, that is a date after the passing of the Act. If that were the intention of the Legislature then appropriate words would have been used. We see the Legislature using words conveying that idea in sub-s.2 of S.3 which runs as follows:-