Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Section 7 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act 1934, defines a 'debt' as inclusive of all liabilities of a debtor in cash or in kind, whether secured or unsecured, payable under a decree or order of a civil court or otherwise, whether mature or not..... The definition of the expression 'debt' therefore includes all liabilities of a debtor in cash or in kind, secured or unsecured, the liability of a mortgagor to pay the money due under the mortgage and to pay interest accruing due is clearly a debt, even if it be assumed that the mortgagee had had no right to enforce the mortgage by sale of the property and had a right only to foreclose the mortgages. Under the terms of the mortgage deeds, if the mortgagor pays the amount due, the mortgagee is bound to release the mortgaged property. It cannot be said that under the three mortgages there was no debt due by the mortgagor, Nor do we agree with the counsel for the mortgagee that the benefit of Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act is available only to the original mortgagor and not to his representatives. Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act by the first sub-section provides-
'In any suit brought after the commencement of this Act in respect of debt as defined in Section 7, advanced before the commencement of this Act no Court shall pass or execute a decree or give effect to an award in respect of such debt for a larger sum than twice the amount of the sum found by the court to have been actually advanced, less any amount already received by a creditor in excess of the amount due to him under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act 1918".

and under Act l3 of 1980 and under Act 50 of 1982, the preamble reads as follows-

"An Act to provide for the relief of certain indebted persons in the State of Tamil Nadu."

Thus, it is clear from the preambles in the four Acts quoted above, Act IV of 1938 is intended to provide for the relief of indebted agriculturists, while the other three Acts are intended to provide for the relief of certain indebted persons, Act 38 of 1972 deals with the case of non-agriculturists debtor while Act 13 of 1980 and Act 50 of 1982 deal with the case of agriculturists as well as non-agricultural persons. There is no difference between in the definitions of the words 'creditor' 'debtor', 'debt' and 'person'. But, only in Act IV of 1938, instead of debtor' the word 'agriculturist' has been defined. It is clear from all these Acts, 'debtor' means any person from whom any debt is due. 'Debt' has been defined as any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured. In the case of Act 38 of 1972, 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982, while defining the word 'debt' it is stated as any liability due from a debtor whether payable under a decree or order of a civil or revenue Court or otherwise, and in the case of Act IV of 1938, it is mentioned as due from an agriculturist whether payable under a decree of order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise. In other words, instead of the word 'debtor' the word 'agriculturist' is used under the definition of the word 'debtor' in Act IV of 1938. The word "person" has also been defined in the same way in all the three Acts, as an individual and includes an undivided Hindu family. The meaning of the word 'due' has been given in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases 4th Edn. Volume 2 as follows---

"A debt is due when it is payable (per James V.C. Re European Life Assurance L, R.9 Eq. 122. In the same passage it is stated that Darling J. said-- 'I think, in a legal sense, that money only can be said to be due, which may be recovered by action. That which a man is under no legal obligation to repay, for whatever reason, is in my opinion no longer money due."

Thus, it is clear from this that money can be said to be due only when it may be recovered by action. This supports the view that when a creditor sought to proceed against the legal representatives for the recovery of decree debt payable by the original debtor from out of the estate in the hands of the legal representatives, the debt is due from them. It is worthwhile to consider the definition of the word 'debt' which deals with any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured due from a debtor whether payable under decree or order of a civil or revenue Court or otherwise. In an earlier Division Bench case of this court in Palani Goundan v. Peria Gounden, (1940) 2 Mad LJ 887 : (AIR 1941 Mad 158) (rendered by Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri JJ.), the purchaser of the equity of redemption at a sale in execution of a money decree against the mortgagors claimed to have the mortgage decree amended under Section 19 of the Act IV of 1938. It was contended that the application for scaling down the mortgage decree is not maintainable as a purchaser of equity of redemption will not come under the definition of judgment-debtor' within the meaning of Section 19 of Act IV of 1938. Dealing with this contention, the Division Bench expressed the, view that the definition of debt in Section 3(iii) includes debts payable under a decree or order of a court, that the liability of the petitioner as the purchaser of the properties subject to the mortgage decree is a 'debt' within the meaning of the Act and that the procedure provided in a statute for enforcement of the substantive rights conferred thereby should be construed as far as possible, so as to give effect to and not to nullify the rights. The Division Bench also expressed that there is no obvious reason why the term 'judgment-debtor' should not be understood as including a person whose liability is a debt as defined by the Act more especially as that definition includes a judgment debt. In view of the ratio in the said case, even the legal representatives of the estate of the" deceased judgment-debtor are entitled to the benefits of the said Act in view of the meaning of the word 'debt' in all these Acts.