PHILIPOSE GEORGE Vs. KOSITY VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point which arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether a person who had availed of the benefit of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 11 of 1970, and had defaulted in payment of instalments as ordered thereunder, is entitled to invoke the provisions of the Kerala Debt Relief Act, 17 of 1977. M. P. Menon J, who heard the matter initially and whose attention was drawn to a judgment of Khalid J., as he then was, in Janardhanan Pillai v. Karthyayani Amma & others, 1974 KLT 141 , held that the principle of that decision would not apply in view of the difference in the provisions of Act 11 of 1970 and Act 17 of 1977. That is bow the matter has come up before us.

(2.) The facts are in a very narrow compass: Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S. No. 25 of 1970. He had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,339/-and due to non payment of the debt the above suit was instituted against him. An ex parte decree for recovery of Rs. 1,600/- with interest at 6 percent on the principal amount was passed on 31-3-1970 by the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta. The judgment debtor has paid an amount of Rs. 718.58 in instalments till 14-1-1974. Atleast some of such payments were effected pursuant to an order of the execution court obtained by the judgment debtor under Act 11 of 1970. However, he defaulted payment of the further instalments. The decree holder then filed E.P. No. 1 of 1979 before the Munsiff's Court, Punalur, for execution of the balance amount due as per the decree amounting to Rs. 1,700/-. The judgment debtor claimed in bis objections that the execution petition was liable to be rejected since his liability had been wiped out in terms of Act 17 of 1977. In his evidence as RW-1, it was disclosed that he had only 74 cents of land, that some of the payments effected by him were pursuant to an order of the court under Act 11 of 1970, and that he could not pay further instalments due to lack of means The execution court rejected the objections of the petitioner judgment debtor for the reason that the judgment debtor having enjoyed the benefit of Act 11 of 1970, was not entitled to claim the benefit of Act 17 of 1977. It was also observed, that the default of the judgment debtor to comply with the terms of an order passed under Act 11 of 1970 would not entitle him to claim the benefit of Act 17 of 1977.

(3.) The point urged by the revision petitioner judgment debtor is that the definition of "debt" and "debtor" under S.2(3) and 2(4) of Act 17 of 1977, read along with S.11 thereof, enables him to claim the benefit of the latter enactment.