K BALAGANGADHARA MENON Vs. P E KUMARAN KARTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order of the learned Additional District Judge of Alleppey dismissing an application under S.16 of the Travancore Debt Relief Act, II of 1116 (as amended by Act III of 1116). The ground on which the petition happened to be dismissed was that the debts in respect of which a settlement was sought under S.16 and 21 were all post Agriculturists Relief Act (III of 1112, Travancore) debts. A decision of the Travancore High Court reported in 1947 TLR 563 which was followed by the Travancore - Cochin High Court in Raghavan v. Mathew 1951 KLT 418 had held that to make a debtor eligible to make an application under S.16 there should at least be one pre Agriculturists Relief Act debt. The correctness of this view was questioned before one of us before whom the revision came up for hearing when sitting singly and in view of the prior decisions the matter was referred to a Division Bench for decision.

(2.) We examined the question carefully and in our opinion the view expressed in those cases is plainly right. S.16(1) enacts:-

(3.) The inability to pay the debts contemplated therein is the inability to pay in instalments as provided by S.8 and 9. S.3(1) makes the Act applicable (subject to exceptions) only to pre Agriculturists Relief Act debts. It is therefore only a person who has such a debt that can apply under S.16. S.3(2) makes the provisions of S.18, 19, 20, 21 and 23 applicable to post Agriculturists Relief Act debts also in order that a full settlement of all the debts might be effected as contemplated by these Sections. A debtor entitled to the benefits of the Act, but unable to make instalment payments is given further concessions provided he would leave all his assets unconditionally in the control of the court vide S.16(3)(e). Such surrender is for distribution among the creditors and unless post Agriculturists Relief Act creditors also get the benefit of the distribution it will be impossible for the debtor to obtain a complete discharge of the obligations due to the creditors. Hence the extension of the provisions of S.18 to 21 to post Agriculturists Relief Act debts also. The prior decisions referred to do not therefore require any reconsideration. Mr. M. Madhavan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised a further point that one of the debts of the petitioner was a pre Agriculturists Relief Act debt though renewed afterwards, that is, after the Debt Relief Act, II of 1116 came into force. That the renewal contemplated by the Explanation to S.3(1) is a renewal before the enactment of the Debt Relief Act, II of 1116 (31-1-1116) has been decided by a Full Bench of the Travancore - Cochin High Court reported in Mathai v. Augusthy 1953 KLT 372 . Mr. Madhavan Nair challenged the correctness of that ruling as well. One of us was a party to that decision and certain decisions of the Travancore High Court which took the contrary view were all reviewed by the Full Bench and dissented from. We are not satisfied that view is wrong and we do not consider it necessary to traverse the grounds covered there over again. The petitioner was therefore not competent to make an application under S.16 by reason of the alleged renewal either.