Kantamani Satyanarayana vs Mattapatti Satyanarayana

This revision petition gives rise to a short point of law whether a person who sells his land after coming into force of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can claim that he is a member belonging to weaker section of the people.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10-10-1977 passed by the Munsiff, Sindhnoor in O.S. No. 89 of 1976 on his file holding that the petitioner is not a debtor, on the preliminary issue.

The facts of the case reveal that a suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 8,000/- and odd on a pronote. The defendant sold his immovable properties on 31-7-1976 after the suit was instituted against him on 6-7-1976. Thereafter, on 18-10-1976 he filed the written statement wherein he took up the contention that he was a debtor under the Act. The learned Munsiff while considering the preliminary issue, took into consideration the fact that he had properties at the time when the Act came into force and subsequently he sold them and held that he was not a debtor under the Act. It is the said order that is challenged before me in the civil revision petition.

The Act received the assent of the President on 12-3-1976, Sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the Act were deemed to have come into force on 21-10-1965. Section-4 is the relevant section. So it becomes clear that the present revision petitioner sold his properties after the Act came into force on 21-10-1975. It is the intention of the Act as expressed in the Preamble to provide relief from indebtedness to small farmers, landless agricultural labourers and weaker sections of the people. Thus, it becomes clear that the debt as contemplated is a debt that was existing on the date of enforcement of this Act and, further, the debtor, who was due and was intended to be relieved of his debt, was a small farmer, landless agricultural labourer or belonged to weaker sections of the people, as on the date of enforcement of the Act. That being so, it is obvious that if a person after coming into force of the Act sells his property, he cannot be allowed to have the benefit of the Act. If he is allowed, it would be playing fraud on the Act and, in the instant case, that is what the present revision, petitioner wants to do. In the circumstances, the learned Munsiff was perfectly justified in taking into consideration the property which the defendant sold after coming into force of the Act and in holding that he was not a debtor as contemplated in the Act on the date of enforcement of the Act. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Revision petition fails and is dismissed.