Ganapathi Bhatta vs A.M.L. D'Sowza and Others

Horwill, J.—The first respondent obtained a mortgage decree, and the petitioner purchased the equity of redemption from the receiver in the

insolvency of the judgment-debtor. The petitioner applied in R.I.A. No. 470 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif of Karkal u/s 19 of the

Madras Agriculturists'' Relief Act to have the decree debt scaled down as against him. The lower Court held that he was not a judgment-debtor

and that therefore Section 9 did not apply to his debt.

Section 19 says:

Where before the commencement of this Act a Court has passed a decree for the repayment of a debt, it shall, on the application of any judgment-

debtor who is an agriculturist...apply the provisions of this Act to such decree and...amend the decree accordingly....

It is thus seen that the petitioner cannot have the advantage of this section unless he is a judgment-debtor. The Agriculturists'' Relief Act does not

define the word ''judgment-debtor'' and so we must take it that the ordinary meaning is assigned to that expression. ""Judgment-debtor"" is defined in

the CPC (Act V of 1908) in Section 2(10) as meaning ""any person against whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has

been made"". Clearly, the petitioner is note a judgment-debtor in that sense. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to an old ruling of

this Court in Panduranga Mudaliar v. Vythilinga Reddi (1907) 17 M.L.J. 417 : ILR 30 Mad. 537, in which it was held that the provisions of

Section 258, Civil Procedure Code, Act XIV of 1882 applied not only to judgment-debtors but to those claiming through them or, in their right.

But even there it was not said that persons claiming through judgment-debtors were also judgment-debtors. It only says that Section 258 applied

to those claiming through them and in their right as well as to judgment-debtors. We are however not concerned with the Code as it stood then,

but with the present Code. It cannot be said that there is anything in the present Code which suggests that ''judgment-debtor'' may sometimes mean

more than it is defined to mean. No example has been cited to me in which a wider meaning has been given to the word ''judgment-debtor'' than is

found in the definition itself. It was expressly held in Thiruvengadam Pillai by agent V. Latchmiah v. B. Venkatasubbiah (1912) 13 I.C. 659 that in

Order 21, Rule 58 ''judgment-debtor'' does not include the assignee of a judgment-debtor. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in

Perianna Goundan Vs. Sellappa Goundan and Others, , which is a decision under this very Act. The learned Judges there were not concerned with

the definition of judgment-debtor, but with the definitions of ""debt"" and ""debtor"". There, the purchaser of the equity of redemption was made a

party to the suit and a decree was passed against him; and so he was undoubtedly a judgment-debtor; but it was argued in that case that as he was

not liable personally, his property only being liable, he was not a debtor. That argument was repelled; and it was held that there was nothing in the

Madras Agriculturists'' Debt Relief Act which distinguished between a personal obligation to pay a debt and an obligation under which only a

man''s property is liable.

The application was therefore rightly decided; for the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 19. The petition is accordingly

dismissed with costs.