RAGHAVAN Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in these revisions is, though short, an important one. The question is this:- Whether the debts barred by the law of limitation can be included within the purview of the "debts due" as mentioned in S.2(4) of Act 17 of 1977 (for short 'the Act'). The court below has answered this question in the affirmative and hence the judgment debtor has filed these revisions.

(2.) Three decree holders have proceeded against this petitioner in execution for realisation of the decree debts due to them. In all the three execution petitions, the present petitioner had put forward a defence that he is a debtor coming within the purview of the Act and therefore claimed the benefit of the provisions of the Act. By a common order, the lower court has held that he is not a debtor because the total debt due from him exceeds Rs. 3,000/- which is the statutory limit In so holding the court below took the view that the time barred debts are not excludable from the total debts of the petitioner.

(3.) S.2(4) of the Act reads thus:-"Debtor" means any person whose annual income does not exceed three thousand rupees, from whom any debt is due, but does not include (1) Any person from whom debt or debts exceeding three thousand rupees (excluding interest) is or are due". (Sub clause (ii) is not material and hence omitted). The word "debts" in the said sub-section need not consist of the debts as defined in S.2(3) of the Act. This proposition is not disputed in view of the decisions reported in Baby v. Sidharthan ( 1979 KLT 869 ), Kunhiraman v. Kunhambu ( 1980 KLT 297 ). But the crucial word is not "debt" alone, but the words "debts due". What is meant by that The word "due" has a legal connotation. When that word is used in conjunction with any fees, toll, goods, or any other sum, its ordinary meaning is "payable" or "legally demandable", etc. It is true that a time barred debt is still a debt. The creditor is entitled in certain circumstances to appropriate the money received from his debtor even towards a debt barred by limitation. Similarly the time barred debt can be good consideration for a contract. In another instance, when a tenant is proceeded against for eviction in Rent Control proceedings, the tenant is liable to deposit the arrears of rent including that portion of rent which is barred as per the law of limitation (Muhamedkutty v. Ahamedkutty ( 1979 KLT 539 )).