BABY Vs. SIDHARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment debtor against whom proceedings have been taken in execution of a money decree claimed benefit under Act 17 of 1977 and that has been rejected by the lower court on the ground that his debts exceed Rs. 3,000/-and as such he is not a debtor entitled to the benefit under the Act. This is challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel contends that the finding of the lower court that the petitioner's debts exceed Rs. 3,000/-, is arrived at by reckoning the debts due from him to certain cooperative societies which should not have been done as debts due to societies are exempted under S.2(3)(a)(v) of the Act. From the finding it is seen that the petitioner is a debtor to a Land Mortgage Bank registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and also to another society. It is by adding the amounts due to these institutions and the decree debt in question that the lower court has come to the conclusion that the debts exceed Rs. 3,000/-. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether this can be done to deny the benefit under the Act to the petitioner. Relevant portion of S.2(4) reads thus:--

(3.) The petitioner has got a contention that the debts due to the Societies referred to are debts incurred many years prior to the commencement of the Act and only if the aggregate liability exceeds Rs.3,000/- on 13-1-1977 he will be disqualified to be a debtor under the Act. This is correct and the lower court has not enquired or gone into this aspect of the matter. The decree holder's counsel also contended that on the petitioner's own admission in his objection to the proclamation schedule his income will exceed Rs. 3,000/-. It was pointed out that in that objection he has stated the number of trees standing in the properties brought to sale and the income therefrom will easily be above Rs. 3,000/-. This also is a matter which requires consideration of the lower court.