PAPPU ANTONY Vs. KRISHNAN NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for decision in this appeal is whether an agriculturist debtor who commits default in payment of six consecutive instalments of the debt forfeits the benefits under S. 5 of Act 31 of 1958. THE learned Additional District Judge held that he does; hence this appeal by the judgment-debtor.

(2.) S. 4 provides for payment of debts is instalments. Sub-section (5) is in these terms: "where any instalment of any debt is not paid on the due date the creditor shall be entitled to recover the same as provided in S. 10 but the debtor shall not forfeit the benefits conferred by this section: Provided that if default is made in payment of six consecutive instalments the debtor shall not be entitled to the benefits of the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) and the whole debt together with such interest as may have accrued thereon less any amount that have already been paid shall be forthwith payable. "

(3.) A debtor is not bound to avail himself of the benefit of payment of the debt in instalments. To accept the appellant's argument would mean that unless a debtor pays the debt in instalments he will not be entitled to the benefits under S. S. Again, S. 7 of the Act provides for amendment of decrees for money on the application of the debtor or the creditor and the court is bound to amend decrees according to the provisions of the Act which includes S, 5. In the case of a decree so amended, the debtor may pay the whole amount due in a lump or in instalments as provided in S. 4. The proviso to sub-section (5) of S. 4 cannot and does not mean that in the case of such a decree the debtor must pay the debt only in instalments or he would lose the benefits of S. S. The debtor's liability is under the amended decree in such a case and such liability is not enlarged by failure to take advantage of the provisions of S. 4 of the Act. We may add that the conclusion we have reached is supported by the decision in Mannanda v. Mathai (1963 KLT. 390) and the order in C. R. P. No. 976 of 1962 (1963 KLT. 1044 ).