Abdul Rahiman Mooya Pilla vs Parameswaran Pillai Madhavan Pillai

Gangadhara Menon, J.—The decree-holder is the Appellant. The appeal is directed against the order of the lower appellate Court confirming the order of the learned Munsiff allowing the application of the 7th Defendant to discharge the decree-debt under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act.

The contention that the application of the 7th Defendant is barred by reason of the prior orders is clearly unsustainable. As had been pointed out by the Courts below, the prior orders related only to the question of stay of, the sale. This is abundantly clear from the order of the High Court in second appeal which reversed the order of the District Judge on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, wherein the learned Judges observed that "in view of the sale having taken place, and the fact that this order does not affect the rights of the parties thereto, we make no further orders."

The argument that there is no debt to be discharged since the sale had taken place is equally without any merit. Admittedly the sale took place after the Debt Relief Act came into force. The 7th Defendant had before the date of the sale intimated to the Court his, intention to discharge the, debt as per the provisions of the Act which had then come into force. In spite of this intimation the Court allowed execution to proceed and the properties were sold in Court auction and purchased by the decree-holder. The Court sale under the above circumstances did not take away the right of the 7th Defendant to have the decree-debt discharged under the previsions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Debt Relief Act.

Next, it was urged before us that the 7th Defendant being only a purchaser of the property charged under the decree, after 23rd Dhanu 1112, he is not one entitled to discharge the decree-debt as per the provisions of the Debt Relief Act. For this position reliance was placed on Section 2(v) and Section 3 of the Act. We do not think that these provisions warrant the conclusion that the learned advocate for Appellant wants us to draw. No doubt the debt would have been incurred before 23rd Dhanu 1112 in order that it may be discharged under the provisions of the Act. But it is not incumbent that the person holding an interest in the property secured for the debt should have obtained his interest in the property before 23rd Dhanu 1112 in order to entitle him discharge the debt under the provisions of Act. It is not disputed that the 7th defend. was at the time of his application a person holding an interest in the property secure for the debt. This is sufficient to entitle to discharge the debt under the previsions the Act.

No other point was urged in appeal. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.