THOMAS Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the date of commencement of the Act the appellant did not have the mortgaged properties with him, he having already conveyed them to a third party. Subsequently, he got them reconveyed in his name in 1960; rind the question for consideration is whether he is entitled to the benefit of instalment payments under S. 4 of the Act. The lower courts have held that since he was not an agriculturist-debtor on the date of commencement of the Act, he was not entitled to relief.

(2.) THE above view of the lower courts is directly in conflict with the decision of this Court in Bernad Augustine v. Krishnan Kunju (1961 KLT. 165), wherein Madhavan Nair, J. has held that the definition of "debt" in S. 2 (c) as inclusive of a liability "incurred by" but not "due from" an agriculturist at the material date and the significant omission of any reference to agriculturist in S. 4 makes it clear that any debt within the definition of the Act is amenable to be discharged under S. 4 of the Act. THE contention, the learned judge proceeds, that the legislature contemplated only agriculturist-debtors to be the exclusive beneficiaries under S. 4 cannot be accepted. To the same effect is an observation of mine in Antony Premiose v. T. Idiculla Panicker (ILR. 1962-11 kerala 644), wherein I have said that the definition of "agriculturist" does not warrant the construction that the agriculturist nature should be in existence at the commencement of the Act. In view of these decisions, the decision of the lower courts has to be reversed.