VELAYUDHAN PILLAI Vs. SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition by the defendant judgment debtor in O.S. 171/1950 is concerned with the interpretation of S.20(1)(b) of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, Act 11 of 1970 (briefly the Act).

(2.) I may straightway read the relevant portion of the provision; "(1) Where any immovable property in which an agriculturist had an interest has been sold in execution of any decree for recovery of a debt or sold under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force for the recovery of a debt due to a banking company in liquidation -

(3.) According to the revision petitioner since the respondent obtained physical possession of the property only on 20-12-1962 in pursuance of the execution of the decree in O.S. 138/1958 he is entitled to get the sale in O.S. 171/1950 vacated because the expression used in S.20(1)(b) is "but the possession of the said property has not actually passed before the 20th day of November, 1957". I think, the argument cannot succeed because the expression on which emphasis is laid cannot be dissociated from the other words in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S.20 as also certain expressions contained in the opening part of sub-section (1). To apply S.20(1)(b) the transfer of possession must be, "from the judgment debtor to the purchaser". The delivery of possession on 20 12 1962 effected in execution of the decree in O.S. 138/1958 is not a delivery of property from the revision petitioner judgment debtor in O.S. 171/1950 to the decree holder therein. Then again, as referred to above, one cannot ignore the main purpose of sub-section (1) of S.20. The provision is intended to help an agriculturist whose interest in a property has been sold, as is clear from the expression "where any immovable property in which an agriculturist had an interest has been sold in execution of any decree for recovery of a debt.. ......". The emphasis, as is clear from the provision, is on the interest which the agriculturist had in the property and not the property as such. If what could be and what is sold is the "interest" which an agriculturist may have in an immovable property, what could be affected by avoidance of the sale under S.20(1)(b) is such interest and not any and every right over that immovable property. In the instant case it is clear that the interest which the revision petitioner agriculturist had in the property attached and sold in execution of the decree in O.S. 171/1950 was an undivided Oodukoor right to the extent of a 3/8 share. The agriculturist had no exclusive possession of any definite portion of the property. In the case of sale of such an interest what is possible in law is only a symbolic delivery. The subsequent suit for partition in O.S. 138/1958 against the other coowners had nothing to do with any interest which the revision petitioner had in that property because such right was already lost by the court sale in O.S. 171/1950.