Judgment :- 1. This appeal is against the order passed by the District Munsiff of Parur in C.M.P. 801 of 1125 dated 20th Thulam 1125. The order runs as follows - "Heard both sides. The debt sought to be discharged is a decree debt. Six per cent of the debt as it stood on 31.1.1116 was paid as 1st instalment. All the other instalment payments are less than 6% of the debt. The defendant is not therefore entitled to any reduction of the debt as per provisions of the Debt Relief Act. This petition is therefore dismissed." 2. This short order does not reveal either the facts of the case or the real dispute between the parties. The facts are these:- The respondent obtained a decree in O.S. 219 of 1114 on the file of the District Munsiff, Parur against the defendant Konnan, since deceased, for recovery of a principal amount of Rs. 700, interest and costs by sale of certain items of immovable properties secured therefore, as also from the defendant personally. The decree is dated 14th Meenom 1114. Execution having been applied for, the judgment-debtor applied by C.M.P. 7330 of 1115 for stay thereof on the ground that he had applied to the Debt Conciliation Board. The court allowed stay of execution pending conciliation. The order of the Board which is in the file, shows that it could not deal with the matter because the total amount of the debts far exceeded the Board's jurisdiction, the debt due to one creditor being about Rs. 10,000 and there were as many as 15 creditors in all. The order is dated 9th Ani 1115. Soon after, the Travancore Debt Relief Act (Act II of 1116) was passed on 31st Chingom 1116. On 6th Kumbhom 1116 the judgment-debtor applied by C.M.P. 1696 of 1116 stating that the proposed to avail himself of the provisions of Ss. 8 and 9 of that Act and that execution may therefore be stayed for six months to enable him to pay the first instalment of the debt. No objection was raised to this petition which was accordingly allowed on 27th Vrischigom 1116. The first instalment was deposited in court on 26th Vrischigom 1116. The amount deposited was 80 Br. Rs. It was admitted that this would be 6 per cent of the debt as on the commencement of the Act. No objection was raised to this petition which was accordingly allowed on 27th Vrischigom 1116. The first instalment was deposited in court on 26th Vrischigom 1116. The amount deposited was 80 Br. Rs. It was admitted that this would be 6 per cent of the debt as on the commencement of the Act. Thereafter, the judgment-debtor and, after his death, his legal representatives who are impleaded as judgment-debtors 2 to 8 (2 of whom are the appellants in this appeal), made payment either into the hands of the decree-holder outside court or by deposit in court on 14 occasions. The amount on each occasion was Rs. 70 and the last payment thus made was on 29th Kumbhom 1124. Memos are seen to have been filed by the decree-holder in court accepting the aforesaid payments as payments made under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act and as for specific instalments contemplated by the said Act. There is no indication in any of these anywhere either that the amount paid on each instalment was short of the amount payable, or that on account of any default of payment the debtor forfeited his rights to the concession given to him by the Act and that the whole decree debt had become payable. 3. After the last of these payments, the decree-holder filed execution petition dated 15th Edavom 1124 stating that though the court passed an order permitting discharge of the decree by payment in instalments under Ss. 8 and 9 of the Debt Relief Act and, though pursuant to that order the first instalment was deposited in court, there was no further payment of 6% of the total debt for any subsequent instalment, that there have been defaults for 3 consecutive instalments and that consequently the whole debt became due and realisable. The decree-holder in that execution petition gave credit to the various sums paid as aforesaid and claimed the balance. On 15th Chingom 1125 one of the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor who was dead by that time, viz., the 1st appellant, deposited in court Rs. 375-9-0 and on 18th Chingom 1125 made the application C.M.P. 801 of 1125 for recording satisfaction of the decree alleging that with the last payment by deposit in court on 15th Chingom 1125, the entire decree stands satisfied under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act. 375-9-0 and on 18th Chingom 1125 made the application C.M.P. 801 of 1125 for recording satisfaction of the decree alleging that with the last payment by deposit in court on 15th Chingom 1125, the entire decree stands satisfied under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act. The decree-holder filed objection petition dated 3rd Kanni 1125 reiterating his claim for the entire amount of the decree on the grounds alleged by him in his execution petition. In reply to this, the petitioner in C.M.P. 801 filed a supplementary petition dated 10th October 1949 corresponding to 24th Kanni 1125, stating inter alia that the decree-holder has agreed by his conduct to the adequacy of the amount of the instalments, that having accepted the various amounts for the several instalments as amounts properly paid under the Debt Relief Act, it is not competent to the decree-holder now to turn round and contend that payments were either irregular or inadequate. The petitioner further prayed that this dispute having arisen between the parties, the court may be pleased to adjudicate the matter fixing the amount payable and granting time to pay in more amounts as may be found due. 4. It is admitted on behalf of the decree-holder that the 1st instalment was properly paid and that 80 per cent of the debt subsisting at the commencement of the Act, with future interest accruing thereon, has been paid within 9 years as provided for in C. (1) S. 9 of the Debt Relief Act. It is, however contended on his behalf that the subsequent intermediate payments made were not in conformity with proviso C to that clause which enjoins payment of 6 per cent at each consequent instalment. It is also contended that there had been default in payment of 3 consecutive instalments and that consequently the whole debt became payable under sub-cl. B of Cl. (3) S. 9. 5. The question for consideration is whether notwithstanding the fact that 80 per cent of the debt as on the date of the coming into force of the Debt Relief Act, has been paid within 9 years as contemplated by S. 9(1), the irregularities in the payment of instalments, complained of by the decree-holder are such as to make the payments made inoperative to give relief to the debtor and to enable the decree-holder to recover the balance of the decree debt. 6. 6. The conduct of the parties has been consistent with and consistent only with the supposition that the instalments were properly paid and that till and inclusive of the time when the last instalment was paid i.e., in Kanni 1124 the debtor never forfeited his right to relief under the Act. A Division Bench of the Travancore High Court decided as early as in the year 1117 that the 6 per cent, contemplated in Cl. 6 of the proviso to S.9 Cl. (1), is 6 per cent of the total amount due as on the date of the coming into force of the Act and not 6 per cent of the reduced amount payable under Cl. (1) of S.9 or sub-cl. (a) and (b) of Cl. (2) of S.9. The decree-holder may therefore be taken to have been aware of his right to get 6 per cent of the total at each instalment. Indeed there is no case set up by the decree-holder of not being aware of his rights in this matter. When he, nevertheless, receives payment of an amount which is short of the amount payable and accepts that smaller amount as for particular instalments under the Debt Relief Act, the inevitable inference arises that he waived the right to claim a larger amount at any of the instalments. The same remark applies with regard to the complaint of the decree-holder that there had been defaults for 3 consecutive instalments and that the debtor forfeited his rights for relief under the Act under the provisions of S. 9 Cl. (3) Sub-cl. (a). The consequence of default for 3 consecutive instalments is to make the entire decree-debt due and payable in a lump. Thereafter there is no question of any instalment being due. If after 3 consecutive defaults the decree-holder receives payment as for particular instalments under the Debt Relief Act, the inevitable inference arises that he waived this rights arising on that account, condoned the defaults and permitted the debtor to pay as though there had been no such default. Thereafter there is no question of any instalment being due. If after 3 consecutive defaults the decree-holder receives payment as for particular instalments under the Debt Relief Act, the inevitable inference arises that he waived this rights arising on that account, condoned the defaults and permitted the debtor to pay as though there had been no such default. "Whenever a party having a right to insist upon something or other being done, does, not insist upon that being done, and with a knowledge that it has not been done, goes on dealing in the matter, just as though everything had been duly done, the natural inference from his conduct is that he has waived or dispensed with the doing of it; in which case of course he cannot afterwards raise the objection that it was not done." (Sirkar on Evidence, 8th Edition p. 967 quoting Cababe p. 105). So here, the respondent relied upon Ouseph Chacko v. Chandi Mathai, 32 T.L.J. 874 and contended that the right of the decree-holder being a question of law no estoppel can operate against him. That was a case where withdrawal of certain amount deposited in court was urged in bar of an appeal against an order passed by the court in which the amount withdrawn was deposited. It transpired however that the deposit was not one made pursuant to the order appealed against and that therefore the withdrawal could not operate to bar the appeal. That decision has no application to the facts of this case. It may be observed that a particular private right is a matter of fact though depending upon rules of law. 7. There appears to be good ground why decree-holder should have intentionally agreed to the payment as aforesaid. The property secured is seen valued by the decree-holder himself in connection with an attempted sale at Rs. 1075. It also appears from the records that there was no one to bid the properties even for that amount not to speak of anything higher. The personal relief of the debtor was worthless. It was therefore not possible to realise the entire decree amount and even for realising the decree amount in part the decree-holder would have had to purchase the property. This was the state of things prior to the coming into force of the Debt Relief Act. The personal relief of the debtor was worthless. It was therefore not possible to realise the entire decree amount and even for realising the decree amount in part the decree-holder would have had to purchase the property. This was the state of things prior to the coming into force of the Debt Relief Act. The records also show that the decree-holder was in need of cash. See the affidavit dated 14th Meenom 1117, filed with application for payment made by the decree-holder on even date. The decree-holder has not gone into the box to explain the admissions contained in the various papers filed by him in court. They and the inferences arising therefrom can therefore be legitimately taken as revealing the real state of affairs. 8. We are, for the foregoing reasons, of opinion that the decree-holder agreed to accept the payments made at each of the various instalments as sufficient payments, to regard the debtor as not in default on account of any intermediate non-payment, and to accept payments throughout as proper payments in instalments under the Debt Relief Act. The amount deposited on 15.1.1125 has also been drawn from court by the decree-holder. The deposit was made as in full discharge of the decree. The depositor does not appear to have agreed to the amount being paid over to the decree-holder otherwise than as in full discharge of the decree, though the court appears to have passed an order for payment to the decree-holder without prejudice to his contentions in the Debt Relief proceedings. 9. The petition filed by the debtor for fixation of the amount and for time for payment of any balance that might be found to be due has not been dealt with by the lower court and awaits disposal. We are of opinion that in view of the fact that 80 per cent of the decree-debt and interest thereon according to law has been admittedly made good by payment through and outside court to the decree holder, no further orders upon that application, which has to be and is treated as a part of C.M.P. 801 of 1125, is necessary and that under the circumstances the order passed by us in this appeal may be taken as one passed on that application as well. 10. We therefore allow the appeal and direct that the decree in O.S. 219 of 1114, be recorded as satisfied. 10. We therefore allow the appeal and direct that the decree in O.S. 219 of 1114, be recorded as satisfied. The decree holder will deposit in court the documents of title relating to the mortgaged properties for delivery to the representatives to the debtor. Appeal allowed.