http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: EAPAN THOMAS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SYED MOHAMMED KUNJU MOHAMMED KUNJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/03/1992

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1553            1992 SCR  (2) 307  1992 SCC  (2) 721        JT 1992 (2)   374  1992 SCALE  (1)740

ACT:      Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970-Section 20- Debt Relief Petition under-Requirement for  maintainability- Object   of   Legislation-Inter-pretation   beneficial    to peasantry  to  be accepted-Cost of  Improvements  and  mesne profits whether payable.

HEADNOTE:      In  execution  of  a money decree,  a  court-sale  took place.   Three pieces of agricultural land of the  judgment- debtor-respondent  were put to auction.  The  decree-holder- appellant purchased the same.      Item Nos.1 and 2 of the auctioned property remained  in possession  of the respondent, but item no. 3 went into  the possession of the appellant.      The respondent approached the executing court filing  a petition u/s. 20 of the Kerala Agriculturists Act, 1970, for retrieval  of the entire property on the basis that  he  had continued to be in possession of a part of it.      The  appellant  contested  the  Debt  Relief   Petition contending  that as the respondent was not in possession  of the entire property, Section 20 of the Act was  inapplicable and that in case it was then before possession of  property, item no. 3 could be asked to be given, cost of  improvements had to be paid under sub-section (5) of Section 20.      All the courts below decided against the appellant.      This appeal by special leave was confined to a claim to property Item No. 3 of the Debt Relief Petition.      Dismissing the appeal of the decree-holder, this Court,      HELD : 1.01. The Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief  Act is a local legislation and had come to give some succour  to the  indebted agriculturists.  The conditions which  led  to the passing of such legislation                                                   308 presumably  were well known to the Kerala State  Legislature and the pulse of it was felt by the High Court Kerala in its Interpretive role. [309D]      1.02. The sale conceived of under Section 20 is one and indivisible  and when it is required to be set aside only  a portion  of the property  sold need be in possession of  the judgment-debtor  to make him eligible to maintain  the  Debt

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Relief Petition. [309E]      1.03.  An  interpretation, beneficial as it is  to  the indebted peasantry is approved.  The courts below as well as the  High Court let the respondent maintain his Debt  Relief Petition.   Such  a  course  is  concurred  with.   Sequally property item no. 3 has also to be retrieved from the  hands of the appellant. [309F]      1.04.  In  the  interests of justice,  neither  is  the appellant  held  entitled to any cost  of  improvements  nor would he be liable for payment of any mesne profits for  the preceding three years. [310A-B]      Syed  Mohammed Beevi Amma v. Mathai Devasia, 1960   KLT 163;  Ramasuppa  Iyer v. Daveed Christudas,  1963  KLT  886, approved.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2578 of 1980.      From the Judgment and Order dated 9th June, 1980 of the High  Court  of Kerala at Ernaculam in C.R.P.  No.  3168  of 1978.      S. Padmanabhan and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.      K.M.K. Nair for the Respondent.      The Order of the Court was delivered:      The  appeal by special leave is confined to a claim  to property  Item  No.  3 of the Debt  Relief  Petition,  which succeeded in th courts below.      In execution of a money decree a court-sale took  place in which three pieces of agricultural land of the  judgment- debtor, respondent herein, was put to auction and  purchased by  the decree-holder, the appellant herein.  On  the  facts found by the courts below item Nos. 1 and 2 of the auctioned property remained in possession of the respondent, but  item No.  3  went  into the possession  of  the  appellant.   The respondent taking the aid of                                                   309 Section  20  of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt  Relief  Act, 1970,  approached the executing court for retrieval  of  the entire property on the basis that he had continued to be  in possession of atleast a part of it, i.e., two survey numbers as itemized.  The Debt Relief Petition was contested by  the appellant  herein  on the ground that  since  the  judgment- debtor-respondent  was  not  in  possession  of  the  entire property,  Section 20 of the aforesaid Act was  inapplicable and  in case it was then before possession of property  item No. 3 could be asked to be given cost of improvements had to be  paid  under  sub-section (5) of Section  20,  which  the appellant  assessed  at  Rs. 2,000.  All  the  courts  below inclusive of the High Court have gone against the  appellant and  the  dispute  herein, as said before,  is  confined  to property item No. 3.      The above-named Act is a local legislation and had come to  give some succour to the indebted  agriculturists.   The conditions  which  led to the passing  of  such  legislation presumably  were well known to the Kerala State  Legislature and the pulse of it was felt by the High Court of Kerala  in its  interpretive  role.  There are two  decisions  of  that Court in support of the claim of the respondent.  The  first one  is by a Division Bench, i.e., 1960 KLT 163 titled  Syed Mohammed  Beevi Amma v. Mathai Devasia followed by a  single bench  in  1963  KLT 886 titled  Ramasuppa  Iyer  v.  Daveed Christudas  (even  though  passed on  the  earlier  statute) wherein  it has been held that the sale conceived  of  under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Section 20 is one and indivisible and when it is required to be set aside only a portion of the property sold need be  in possession  of the judgment-debtor to make him  eligible  to maintain the Debt Relief Petition.  These two decisions have governed  the  field  without any discordant  note  in  that State.   We  will  rather frown on  setting  aside  such  an interpretation,   beneficial  as  it  is  to  the   indebted peasantry.   The  courts  below as well as  the  High  Court followed these decisions in letting the respondent  maintain his  Debt  Relief petition.  We concur with such  a  course. Sequally  property item No. 3 has also to be retrieved  from the   hands   of  the  appellant.   We   order   accordingly maintaining the judgment and orders of the courts below.      The   appellant   laid  a  claim  of  Rs.   2,000   for improvements wayback in the year 1970.  A period of over  20 years  has passed by.  It would be fair to presume that  the appellant  has  derived the fruits of  the  improvements  in these past years.  It would also be fair correspondingly  to assume  that on the maintenance of the orders of the  courts below he would be liable to                                                   310 pay  mesne profits for the preceding three years  on  having remained  in  possession  of the property item  No.  3.   We square  these  two claims in the interests  of  justice  and close the matter.  Neither is the appellant held entitled to any cost of improvements nor would he be liable for  payment of any mesne profits for the preceding  three years.   There would correspondingly be a duty on the respondent.      For  the  aforesaid reasons this appeal  fails  and  is hereby  dismissed  but added with the above  directions  and without any order as to costs. V.P.R.                                     Appeal dismissed.                                                   311