VAVA KUNU MYTHEEN KUNJU Vs. KESAVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the purchaser of item 15 of the decree schedule. His purchase was prior to the date when Act XXXI of 1958 (Kerala) came into force. He applied for relief under that Act in respect of the decree debt which is charged on item 15 also. The lower court summarily rejected, the application on the ground that the appellant is not a debtor who can invoke the aid of Act XXXI of 1958. The appeal is against that order.

(2.) The view taken by the lower court is not correct. As already stated the decree debt which is a debt charged on item 15 also, was in existence even prior to Act XXXI of 1958. The appellant who had become the owner of this item, is a debtor who is bound to discharge the debt in order to protect his interest in the property. If he is an agriculturist as defined in Act XXXI of 1958, the debt due under the decree will be a debt as defined in that Act. It follows therefore that the appellants application for relief under that Act has to be considered on its merits and cannot be summarily rejected on the ground that he is not a debtor who can invoke the aid of the Act. The decree holder in his objection petition has stated that neither the original decree holder nor the appellant is an agriculturist as defined in Act XXXI of 1958. This objection has not been investigated or decided by the lower court. Other relevant objections have also to be considered and decided on their merits.

(3.) In the result the order of the lower court is set aside and the case is sent back to the lower court for fresh disposal of the appellants application after a due consideration of all relevant points. We make no order as to the costs of this appeal.