EAPEN THOMASversusSYED MOHAMMED KUNJU MOHAMMED KUNJU

                                  EAPEN THOMAS                                         A
                                            v.
              SYED MOHAMMED KUNJU MOHAMMED KUNJU

                                   MARCH 13, 1992

            [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA                                    B
                           REDDY, JJ.]

             Kera/a Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970-Section 2()-{)ebt Relief
      Petition under-Requirement for maintainability-Object of legislation-Inter-
      pretation beneficial to indebted peasentry to be accepted-Cost of improve-       c
      ments and mesne profits whether payable.

            In execution of a money decree, a court-sale took place. Three pieces
      of agricultural land of the judgment-debtor-respondent were put to auc-
      tion. The decree-holder-appellant purchased the same.
                                                                                       D
             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 proper-
      ty on the basis that he had continued to be in possession of a part of it.       E

            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
                                                                                       F
      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.                                               G
            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 agricul-
      turists. The conditions which led to the passing of such legislation             H
                                          307
    308                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS.    '              [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A   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~ [3090)

         1.02. The sale concei"ed 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
B   maintain the Debt Relief Petition. [309E]

          1.03. An interpretation, beneficial as it is to the indebted peasentry
    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. Sequal-
    ly property item no. 3 has also to be retrieved from the hands of the
c   appellant. [309F]

          1.04. In the interests of justice, neither is the appellant held entitled   r
    to any cost of improvements nor would he be liable for payment of any
    mesne profits for the preceding three years. [310A-B]
D       Syed Mohammed Beevi Amma v. Mathai Devasia, 1960 KLT 163;
    Ramasuppa Iyer v. Daveed Christudas, 1963 KLT 886, approved.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2578 of
    1980.
E
         From the Judgment and Order dated 9th June, 1980 of the High
    Court of Kerala at Ernaculam in C.R.P. No. 3168 of 19i8.

            S. Padmanabhan and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.

F           K.M.K. Nair for the Respondent.

            The Order of the Court was delivered :

          This appeal by special leave is confined to a claim to property Item
    No. 3 of the Debt Relief Petition, which succeeded in the courts below.
G         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 ofihe auctioned
    property remained in possession .of the respondent, but item No. 3 went
H   into the possession of the appellant. The respondent taking the aid of
                          EAPEN THOMAS v. MOHD. KUNJU                           309

         Section 20 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970, approached A
         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
                                                                                       B
         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 applellant and the dispute herein, as said before, is confined to proper-
         ty item No. 3.                                                               c
                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 D
         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 o~ the earlier statute) wherein it has been
         held that the sale conceived of under Section 20 is one and indivisible and E
- >t--   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 R~lief 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 peasentry. F
         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 maint;iining the judgment
         and orders of the courts below.
                                                                                      G
               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 H
    310                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A 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 cor-
    respondingly be a duty on the respondent.
B
          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.