THOMMAN Vs. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Second Appeal by the judgment debtor, the only question for determination is whether the execution petition dated the 15th January 1959, is barred by limitation or not. The previous execution petition was dismissed on the 8th December, 1955. This was more than three years before the present execution petition was filed. Under S.3(1) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, no application for execution of a decree in respect of a debt shall be made against any agriculturist in any court before the expiry of six months from the commencement of this Act and S.20 has provided, that in computing the period of limitation for an application for the execution of a decree in respect of a debt, the time during which the making of the application was barred under S.3 shall be excluded. If this period were excluded the present execution petition was within time. The fact that the appellant is an agriculturist was not disputed, but it was contended that the respondent decree holder is a Banking Company, that the debt due to it exceeded Rs. 1500/-, was incurred under a single transaction and was due before the commencement of this Act, and that therefore it is not a debt within the purview of the definition of that term in S.2 of the Act. This definition excludes a liability of the above category due to a Banking Company. It was further contended, that the word debt in S.3 must be understood in the sense of the definition. The argument is no doubt plausible, but in my opinion cannot be sustained. The exclusion of a debt of the above category due to a Banking Company is enacted in clause (xi) of S.2(c) of the Act, but there is a proviso to it which reads: .

(2.) Mr. M. K. Narayana Menon who kindly acted as amicus curiae has placed before me another consideration, which I think must prevail. Under S.4 sub-s.(3) the first instalment of the debt is payable at any time before the expiry of six months from the commencement of the Act. It is apparent, that the object underlying S.3 is that no agriculturist shall be harassed by any execution proceeding during this interval. In this manner, S.3 may be said to be related to S.4. If by reason of the proviso to clause (xi), S.4(3) is applicable also to the debt now in question, it is quite clear that the legislative intent was to extend the benefit of S.3 to such a debt as well. This legislative intent does clash with the strict definition of the term debt in S.2(c). But S.2 opens with the words In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires. So, if in the light of the legislative intent the context requires that the word debt in S.3 should be interpreted differently as applicable to a liability of this nature, then the opening words afford ample scope for such an interpretation being accepted. The following observations of the Full Bench in Kurien v. Saramma Chacko 1964 KLT 1 may be quoted:--