MUHAMMAD PATHUMMAL Vs. PADMANABHA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition Mr. K. S. Paripoornan, learned counsel for the petitioners, who were some of the counter petitioners, namely counter petitioners, 1 to 7, in A. D. R. P. No. 3/60, challenges the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Trivandrum overruling certain objections raised by them to the maintainability of the application filed by the 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 37/50 on the file of the District Court of Trivandrum, claiming relief under S.15 of Act 31 of 1958, in A. D. R. P. 3/60.

(2.) The 1st respondent, against whom the petitioners had obtained the decree in question, filed an application under S.15 of Kerala Act 31 of 1958, for settlement of his debts. That application was opposed by the present revision petitioners on two grounds, namely (1) that the applicant was not an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Act 31 of 1958, and (2) that the applicant has not shown very many items of property, which, though he claims to have alienated in favour of third parties, really belonged to him and form part of his assets, and therefore having regard to the circumstance that some of the items which are stated by the petitioner as forming part of the assets of the debtor have not been shown in the application filed by the debtor, the application is not maintainable.

(3.) So far as the first of these contentions is concerned, the debtor opposed the claim made by the petitioners. He relied upon the circumstance that the properties included in schedule A of his application under S.15 of the Act are agricultural lands and that he is an agriculturist as that expression is defined in S.2(a) of the Act. So far as the 2nd contention is concerned the debtor pleaded that he has shown all the assets which he is possessed of on the date of filing the application under S.15 of the Act. He also contended that the transfers and alienations referred to by the petitioners cannot be invoked by them for the purpose of treating the properties covered by those alienations as still belonging to the debtor inasmuch as he has lost title over those items long ago, and therefore in the eye of law they cannot be considered to be assets of the debtor. It was also urged that even assuming that the debtor has not shown some of the assets, which may belong to him, in his application filed under S.15, nevertheless the application cannot be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable.