ELAVALLI KURISUPALLI PRARTHANA SANGHAM Vs. VELU APPUNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question for decision in this Civil Revision Petition referred to a Division Bench is as to whether the liability incurred but not due for payment on the date of commencement of Kerala Act 17 of 1977 is a ''debt" within the meaning of the Act. The question arises in proceedings in execution of a decree for money obtained prior to the commencement of the Act. The contention of the judgment debtor is that he is a 'debtor' within the meaning of the Act and the 'debt' should be deemed to have been wholly discharged by virtue of the provisions of S.3 of the Act. The court below has found that the annual income of the judgment - debtor does not exceed Rs. 3000/- and that his debts on the date of the commencement of the Act do not also exceed Rs. 3000/-.

(2.) The finding of the execution court that the annual income of the judgment debtor does not exceed Rs. 3000/- is not challenged before us. Learned counsel for the decree holder, however, submits that the finding that the judgment debtor did not have debts exceeding Rs. 3000/- on the date on which the Act came into force is clearly unsustainable on the facts admitted and proved in this case.

(3.) The decree holder had examined Pws. 1 to 4 to prove Exts. X1 to X4. There is no dispute that the liability under Exts. X1 to X3 subsisting on the date on which the Act came into force was for Rs. 2400/-. The only other question is as to whether the liability under Ext. X4 will fall within the definition of "debt" under the Act. Ext. X4 dated 3-4-1975 is a receipt issued by the judgment debtor to Pw. 4 for payment of a sum of Rs. 1000/- as security at a time when he was taken into the service of the judgment debtor. The evidence of Pw. 4 as well as Ext. X4 receipt show that Pw. 4 was employed for the sale of ayurvedic medicine on commission basis.