KUNHANAM Vs. THE S. P. V. BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether a debtor whose only debt is one exempted from the definition of 'debt' in S.2(4) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970, is entitled to apply for a settlement of such a debt under S.15 and 16 of the said Act. The lower court was of the view that he is not entitled and consequently dismissed his application and this appeal is against that order of dismissal.

(2.) The 1st respondent is a banking company and the debt due to that company from the appellants exceeds Rs. 3,000 under a single transaction. Hence it is a debt exempted from the definition of the word 'debt in sub-s.(4), S.2 of the Act [See clause (1) of sub-s.(4) of S.2 of the Act]. That means the debt cannot be recalculated as provided in S.4 and 5 of the Act for discharge. S.15 sub-s.(1) provides that 'any agriculturist who is unable to pay the debts payable by him' may apply 'for a full settlement of such debts'. The contention of the appellant is that this sub-section enables the debtor who is unable to pay his debts including debts which are not included in the expression 'debt' in the Act, to apply and according to counsel the expression 'debt' used in sub-s.(1) of S.15 comprehends all debts, whether exempted or not under any clause of sub-s.(4) of S.2 of the Act.

(3.) This section corresponds to S.15 of Act 31 of 1958 with some modifications. Under the earlier Act an agriculturist who is unable to pay the debts "under the foregoing provisions of this Act" may apply for a full settlement of his debts. "The foregoing provisions of this Act" are S.4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the said Act where payment and method of recalculation are stated. On the language of S.15(1) of the earlier Act in a Full Bench decision of this court it was held that the right to apply under S.15 can be availed of only if there is at least one debt satisfying the definition of the word 'debt' as defined in the Act which the debtor was unable to discharge under the earlier provisions of the Act. (see Balakrishnan v. Asoka Bank Ltd. ( 1965 KLT 1059 FB). At page 1062 it was observed thus: