Balagangadhara Menon vs Kumaran Kartha and Others

Koshi C, J.—This revision is directed against an order of the learned Additional District Judge of Alleppey dismissing an application u/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 Sections 16 to 21 were all post-Agriculturists'' Relief Act (III of 1112, Travancore) debts. A decision of the Travancore High Court reported in 1947 T. L. R. 563 which was followed by the Travancore-Cochin High Court reported in 1951 K. L. T. 418 had held that to make a debtor eligible to make an application u/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. We examined the question carefully and in our opinion the view expressed in those cases is plainly right. Section 16 (1) enacts: -

Any individual who is unable to pay his debts under the foregoing provisions of this Act may present an application in the Court within whose jurisdiction he resides or ordinarily carries on business for a full settlement of his debts.

The inability to pay the debts contemplated therein is the inability to pay in installments as provided by Sections 8 and 9, Section 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 u/s 16. Section 3 (2) makes the provisions of sections 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 those Sections. A debtor entitled to the benefits of the Act, but unable to make installment payments is given further concessions provided he would leave all his assets unconditionally in the control of the court - vide Section 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 Sections 18 to 21 to post-Agriculturists'' Relief Act debts also. The prior decisions referred to do not therefore require any re-consideration. 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 Section 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 1953 K. L. T. 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 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 u/s 16 by reason of the alleged renewal either.

The petition fails in the result and we dismiss it with costs. Advocate''s fee one set only.