JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan and Madeley, JJ. - In this case the Appellant has been refused the benefit of Sections 7 and 8 of the Debt Redemption Act. When the decreeholder applied for execution the judgment-debtor applied for amendment of the decree under these sections. The decree-holder then filed a declaration u/s 4 of the Act. The trial Court, therefore, refused to amend the decree. The judgment-debtor went in appeal to the District Judge who dismissed the appeal. The judgment debtor has now come in second execution of decree appeal to this Court. It is argued that the personal remedy against the judgment-debtor was time-barred when the declaration was made, and furthermore u/s 21 of the Debt Redemption Act personal remedy against the judgment-debtor, where the property proves insufficient to satisfy the mortgage debt, is barred. It is argued that the decree is primarily a decree against the property and not against the agriculturist, and therefore in view of the terms of Section 4 "the provisions of this Act shall not apply to a suit for the recovery of a loan from an agriculturist etc;" the declaration cannot legally be made for the decree-holder is not and cannot recover the loan from the agriculturist but only from the property. 2. This same argument has been repudiated by both the Courts below and we agree with the view taken by them. When the decree-holder recovers a loan from the property belonging to the agriculturist he is recovering his loan from the agriculturirt so that the case falls within the terms of Section 4. 3. It has also been argued that there is no "quid pro quo" in the present case. By making this declaration the decree-holder sacrifices nothing, because in any case he would not be able to realize his money by sale of other property belonging to the judgment debter. Therefore the land and agricultural produce of the judgment-debtor were already safe before he made the declaration. There still, however, remains the person of the judgment-debtor Moreover the Debt Redemption Act has said nothing about consideration or "quid pro quo" and probably nothing of the sort was in the mind of the legislature. The object of the Act seems to be the saving of the persons of agriculturists from arrest and their land and produce from seizure. There still, however, remains the person of the judgment-debtor Moreover the Debt Redemption Act has said nothing about consideration or "quid pro quo" and probably nothing of the sort was in the mind of the legislature. The object of the Act seems to be the saving of the persons of agriculturists from arrest and their land and produce from seizure. Therefore it enacted that if the creditors would not give up their rights of realising money against land, agricultural produce and the person of agriculturist, the decrees should be amended so as to reduce the amount of the debt. If this was their object, there would be no need to reduce the amount of the debt when those three things were safe. Bishambhar Nath v. Radhey Shiam Seth 1942 A.W.R. (H.C.) 169 : AIR 1942 All 252 supports the view we have taken. 4. Fsr these reasons we think that it was open to the decree-holder to make this declaration and that the lower Court was justified in refusing to amend the decree. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.