Ahmadu vs Kalyaniyamma

Raghavan, J.—This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of some importance regarding the interpretation of section 15 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act of 1958; the question being whether section 15 applies to all the debts of an agriculturist or it applies only to such of his debts as would fall within the definition of debt in section 2(c) of the Act. The petitioner in the revision filed a petition in the lower court u/s 15 for a full settlement of all his debts and he also filed an interlocutory application for stay of execution of two decrees, the debt in one falling under the definition in section 2(c) and the debt in the other being one excepted under clause (vi) of sub-section (c) of section 2, pending settlement of his debts. The lower court stayed the former, but refused to stay the latter, holding that section 15 did not apply to such an excepted debt. Aggrieved by the said order the agriculturist debtor has filed this revision, claiming that the latter debt also comes within the purview of section 15 and therefore the lower court ought to have stayed the execution of the latter decree also. Section 15(1) of the Act provides that any agriculturist who is unable to pay his debts under the foregoing provisions of the Act, may present an application to the Court within whose jurisdiction he resides or ordinarily carries on business for a full settlement of his debts. Section 15(3)(b) lays down that the petition shall contain the amounts and other particulars of all claims (and not debts merely) against him at the commencement of the Act, together with the name, address and residence of his creditors. Clause (c) of section 15(3) further enacts that the petition shall also contain the amount and other particulars of all his property including claims due to him and clause (e) thereof says further that the petition shall contain a statement that he unconditionally leaves all his assets in the control of the Court.

The foregoing provisions clearly indicate, without room for any doubt, that what the Legislature contemplates is a settlement of all claims against an indebted agriculturist and not merely a settlement of his debts coming under the definition of that word in section 2(c). The avowed object of the Act is to provide for the relief of indebted agriculturists and the object of section 15 thereof appears clearly to be to give such debtor a discharge from all claims against him or of all his liabilities existing at the commencement of the Act. The Act by section 18(a) thereof provides for giving back a fourth of his estate to the agriculturist, subject to a maximum value of Rs. 4000/-, and this also indicates that the intention of the Legislature is to have a settlement of all the liabilities of the indebted agriculturist by the Court taking charge of all his assets and thereafter allotting only a portion of the estate to him. Another indication that excepted debts are also to be included in such settlement u/s 15 is afforded by the proviso to sub-section (b) of section 18. In fixing the order of priority of payment of the several debts, two categories of debts, both excepted u/s 2(c)(i), i.e., debts due to the Government and to local authorities, are mentioned in this proviso. If the excepted debts are not to be included in the settlement u/s 15, the reference to such debts in this proviso is otiose and therefore, this reference, to my mind, is indication positive that the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 15 is to include all debts within its ambit. Hence the word ''debts'' occurring in section 15 has its ordinary and natural meaning and it means all the debts of an indebted agriculturist and not merely such of his debts as would come within the definition of that word in section 2(c) of the Act. It may also be noted that the definition section commences with the words "unless the context otherwise requires" and from the foregoing discussion it must have been clear that the context of section 15 requires otherwise.

In the result I would hold that the order of the lower court is unsustainable and would therefore allow the Civil Revision Petition, but, in the circumstances without costs. The execution of the decree in O. S. No. 69 of 1950 on the file of the District Court of Alleppey will be stayed, pending the petition u/s 15 of Act XXXI of 1958 in the lower court.