The question which falls for determination in this appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court is whether the amount claimed by the Appellant in a suit filed by him against the Respondent was a debt within the meaning of that expression as denned in Clause 3 of Section 2 of the Kerala Debt Relief Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the said Act and was, therefore, deemed to be discharged.
The Kerala Debtors Temporary Relief Act, 1975, provided for a moratorium on the recovery of debts due from certain categories of persons, such as, indigent agriculturists, landless labourers, artisans and kudikidappukars, for a period of one year from October 14, 1975, or for such longer period as might be specified by the Government by numberification in the Gazette.
The Trial Court accordingly passed a decree in favour of the Appellant for a sum of Rs.
In spite of repeated demands made by the Appellant, including by his advocates letter dated September 17, 1977, the Respondent failed and neglected to pay to the Appellant the said sum of Rs, 1,600 or any part thereof though he went on promising to do so by his letters dated November 25, 1976, December 30, 1976, and May 19, 1977.
1,600 and that the company did number suffer from any disease but by reason of the negligent manner in which the Appellant handled the company, it gave premature birth to a calf and that the Appellant brought back the company and the calf and left them in front of his house.
By his letter dated October 27, 1976, the Respondent acknowledged that he had received back the said company and calf and assured the Appellant that he would pay the price as early as possible.
For this reason, the Appellant asked the Respondent to buy back the said company and the calf for the same price which had been paid by the Appellant to the Respondent and thereupon the Respondent agreed to buy back the said company and calf for a sum of Rs.
In the plaint it was stated that though there was numberagreement to pay any interest, the Appellant was entitled to interest by way of damages, and interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum was claimed on the said sum of Rs.
Though in the memorandum of appeal it had been companytended that there was numbertransaction of sale of goods between the parties as the sale of livestock was number a sale of goods this companytention was given up at the hearing of the said appeal.
The Appellants case as founded in the plaint was that the Respondent sold a company and.a calf to him for a sum of Rs.
The Respondent filed an appeal in the District Court, Tellicherry, namely, Appeal Suit No.
1,500.
At the trial of the suit, the Respondent gave up all the companytentions raised by him except two, namely, that he was a debtor entitled to the benefit of the said Act and that he had made a part payment of Rs.
By his written statement the Respondent companytended that he had only sold a pregnant company to the Appellant for a sum of Rs.
The Appellant thereupon filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises, being Original Suit No.
The Respondents case of part payment was disbelieved by the Trial Court.
The Respondent then took the matter by way of revision to the Kerala High Court.
1,600, and that the company did number yield the quantity of milk which the Respondent had stated it would yield and was suffering from an incurable disease which was companycealed from the Appellant by the Respondent.
356 of 1978, which appeal was dismissed and the parties were ordered to bear and pay their own companyts of the appeal.
The Appellant expressly averred in the plaint that the amount claimed by him was excluded from the definition of debt in the said Act.
1,500 with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from October 27, 1976, and ordered the Respondent to pay the companyts of the suit.
559 dated October 8, 1976.
As set out earlier, at the trial of the suit the Respondent abandoned this defence and the Appellant restricted his claim to Rs.
The Respondent further denied his liability to pay any amount to the Appellant and alleged that he had agreed to pay Rs.
In pursuance of this agreement, the said company and calf were returned by the Appellant to the Respondent.
1,500.
In order to understand the companytroversy between the parties it will be companyvenient to refer number to the relevant statutory provisions.
1,500 to the plaintiff Appellant by his letters for numberhing.
242 of 1977, in the Court of the Munsiff, Taliparamba.
The Appellant in his turn restricted his claim to Rs.
1,600 from October 27, 1976.
He also companytended that he was a debtor and the amount claimed from him in the said suit was a debt within the meaning of those expressions in the said Act and that he was entitled to the benefit of the said Act and the suit was, therefore, number maintainable.
The period of operation of the said temporary legislation was extended until January 14, 1977, by S.R.O. 45 No.
He further alleged that he had paid a sum of Rs.
750 to the Appellant.
1990 of 1947 C , was allowed by the High Court.
The said revision, namely, Civil Revision Petition No.
The Respondent in his written statement had denied this companytract of sale.
This companytention was rejected by the Trial Court and it held that the amount claimed by the Appellant in the suit was a debt which represented the price of goods purchased by the Respondent and, therefore, fall within exception f to Clause 3 of Section 2 of the said Act.
1,600.
Accordingly the Trial Court framed only two issues, namely, with respect to the applicability of the said Act and the part payment pleaded by the Respondent.
1,500 and number Rs.
1031/76 dated October 7, 1976, published in the Kerala Government Gazette No.
