Judgment :- 1. This case has been referred for decision by a Full Bench; and the facts of the case and the points to be determined are given in the order of reference given below: ORDER OF REFERENCE "Defendants Nos.1 and 17 are the appellants. The first defendant was discharging the decree-debt under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act. On the allegation that he has forfeited his claims for the benefit under Section 9 of the Act, since he defaulted to pay the last instalment, the decree-holder filed an execution application for recovery of the balance of the amount due under the decree after giving credit for the payments already made. The 1st defendant resisted the execution application on the ground that the entire decree amount had been paid by him as per the provisions of the Act and that on taking of accounts there would only be a balance due to him. It is seen that except for two instalments in 1117 the first defendant was paying amounts in excess of 6 per cent of the debt on the due dates till the 16th instalment date which was on 31st Chingam 1124. The statement prepared by the office shows that on 28th Chingom 1124 the debtor has paid a sum of Fs. 1004-2-8 and the balance of the decree amount still to be paid for full discharge under the Act was only Fs. 221-0-6. As this balance was less than 6 per cent of the debt the court below took the view that the 16th instalment was the last instalment by which he had to discharge the debt and that by the failure to pay the entire balance due on the 16th instalment date he has forfeited his right under the Act. It appears that after 31st Chingam 1124 the debtor has paid on 29th Kumbham 1124, i. e:, before the 17th instalment date Fs. 997-2-0 which is more than the balance due as per the provisions of the Act. This payment was however considered out of time. It appears that after 31st Chingam 1124 the debtor has paid on 29th Kumbham 1124, i. e:, before the 17th instalment date Fs. 997-2-0 which is more than the balance due as per the provisions of the Act. This payment was however considered out of time. Section 9 (1) of the Debt Relief Act provides: "If eighty per cent of the amount of any debt together with future interest that may accrue thereon is repaid within nine years from the date of the commencement of Act, the whole debt shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any law contract, decree or order of court to the contrary be deemed to be discharged. Provided that [a] the first instalment is paid within six months from the date of the commencement of the Act, [b] subject to the provisions contained in Sub section [3], each of the succeeding instalments is paid within six mouths, of the date of the preceding instalment, and [c] except in the case of the last instalment, the amount paid at each instalment is not less than six per cent of the debt subsisting at the commencement of the Act or less than rupees ten whichever is larger." Section 9 (3) and (4) further provide:- "[3] [a] if subsequent to the payment of the first instalment default is made in the due payment of any instalment, such defaulted instalment shall be realisable forthwith. [b] If default is made in the payment of three consecutive instalments or the last instalment, the' debtor shall not be entitled to claim the benefits of the provisions of Sub-section [1] or Sub-section [2] and the whole debt together, with such interest as may have accrued thereon less any amount that may have already been paid shall be forthwith payable. [4] Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prevent a debtor from claiming the benefits of this section by making payment of any or all the instalments before the due date." In view of the above provisions it is contended that in as much as no default was made in the payment of three consecutive instalments and there was a balance still due after payment of the amount due for the 16th instalment, the 16th instalment could in no sense be taken as 'the last instalment' contemplated in the section. The question for decision therefore is as to the instalment which may be said to be the last one within the meaning of the expression 'the last instalment' in Section 9 of the Act. Our attention was drawn to a decision reported in 18 T. L. T. 206. But the present question did not directly arise for decision in that case. As the question involved in this case is an important on we think that an authoritative decision by a Full Bench is desirable. Therefore we refer the case for decision to a Full Bench". 2. The debtor was regularly paying the amount due for each instalment till the 15th. The balance due under the decree found on calculation, was stated to be an amount which was less than what was fixed for each instalment. It was, therefore, argued that in this case the 16th instalment was the last instalment envisaged under the Debt Relief Act; and, if the balance was not paid before the last date, i. e., before 30th Chingam 1124, the debtor would forfeit all privileges conferred on him by the Debt Relief Act. If this position was accepted, the only effect would be that, against the provisions of the Debt Relief Act, the court would be shortening the period within which the debtor was entitled to discharge his debt. As could be seen form the several provisions under section 9 of the Debt Relief Act, the essential conditions are: (1) the amount to be deposited for each instalment is not to be less than six per cent of the debt, found due on the date of the Act or Rs. As could be seen form the several provisions under section 9 of the Debt Relief Act, the essential conditions are: (1) the amount to be deposited for each instalment is not to be less than six per cent of the debt, found due on the date of the Act or Rs. 10 whichever is larger; (2) 6% of the admitted debt should have been paid on or before 21st Edavom 1116 as the period for the payment of the 1st instalment had been extended to this date by a Proclamation; (3) the debtor, in case of doubt or dispute, should have paid the deficit, if any, in the instalments deposited within the time fixed by the court after settling the total amount of the debt and fixing the instalment under section 15; (4) the instalments are to be paid in such a way that there should be no consecutive defaults in the payment of 3 instalments; and (5) the entire debt is to be discharged within two, six or nine years as the case may be, if the debtor desires to get the debt deducted by thirty, twenty-five, or twenty per cent. If all these conditions are satisfied, the debtor would not be a defaulter. Six per cent of the debt or Rs. 10, fixed for each instalment, was not for equating payment of the instalments. That was only laid down as the basis for a working principle. The only condition is that the amount, to be paid for each instalment, is not to be less than six per cent of the entire debt till the fixed percentage of the debt as provided for in section 9 is discharged. It is open to the debtor, as laid down in section 9 (4) of the Debt Relief Act, to make payment of any or all of the instalments before the due date. It is open to the debtor, as laid down in section 9 (4) of the Debt Relief Act, to make payment of any or all of the instalments before the due date. It is also open to him to pay something in excess of the amount due for each instalment and, in the case of such excess payments, it does not debar the debtor from claiming that the payment, made in excess should be appropriated and adjusted towards subsequent instalments as they fall due (see the decision in O. R. P. 823 of 1123) (22 T.L.T. 1.) So long as the debtor is careful to see that there are no three consecutive defaults after the 1st instalment he is safe, and he can discharge the entire debt, as in this case, within nine years, i. e., within the last day of Chingom 1125. It was seen in this case that the amount fixed for each instalment was 886 Fs. and 9 Cash; and, when a calculation was made, it was found that only 588 Fs. remained due when the last deposit for the 15th instalment was made. It is true that this balance was less than the amount fixed for each instalment. He is, therefore, entitled to pay the balance of 588 Fs. before the 18th instalment, i. e., before he commits three consecutive defaults; and, if he does so, he is safe. 3. Reference was made to the decision in S. A. 247 of 1122 for the position that the last instalment need not necessarily be on the last day of the second, the sixth or the 9th year, from the date of the Debt Relief Act. In that case, the debt to be discharged was less than Rs. 60 and the minimum for each instalment was Rs. 10; so that the whole debt could be discharged by six instalments. It was held in that case that the sixth instalment should be held to be the last. The sixth instalment fell on 31st Chingam 1119 and, since the last payment was only on 15th Mithunam 1119, it was held in that case that the debtor had forfeited the benefits of the Debt Relief Act. It was held in that case that the sixth instalment should be held to be the last. The sixth instalment fell on 31st Chingam 1119 and, since the last payment was only on 15th Mithunam 1119, it was held in that case that the debtor had forfeited the benefits of the Debt Relief Act. No doubt, he could not claim the benefit of the six years or the nine years provided for in Section 9; but he should have been given the benefit of the Debt Relief Act if he had not committed three consecutive defaults within this period. To this extent, that decision does not appear to be correct; and we do not follow that portion of the reasoning which fixes the last date of instalment on 31st Chingam 1119. There was an argument that the instalments were to be calculated not as laid down in the Act but with reference to the previous payment. This question was the subject of consideration in Parameswaran Pillai v. Anandavalli Amma,18 T. L. T. 206 and, in considering the several provisions of the Act, the learned Chief Justice observed as follows in the course of the judgment: "Hence, if an instalment could start only from the date of payment and not otherwise, then the default of the debtor to make an instalment payment will virtually postpone indefinitely the starting of the later instalment period whereas a more diligent debtor who makes an early payment becomes the sufferer, because, though he might have paid ten minimum instalments in advance during the first six months, if he defaults for the next three instalments, he will lose the benefits of the Act. It could hardly have been the intention of the Legislature to favour a recalcitrant debtor in preference to a diligent one." Again, on page, 211, the following observations were made: "I therefore arrive at the conclusion that the instalments contemplated by Section 9 are definite periodic instalments of six months from the commencement of the Act. For each instalment of payment, six per cent of the debt due is prescribed as the minimum. The debtor may pay more than six per cent and even before the due dates of the instalment. For each instalment of payment, six per cent of the debt due is prescribed as the minimum. The debtor may pay more than six per cent and even before the due dates of the instalment. But so long as there is no default of the minimum requirements of the statute, namely that the first payment is made within the first six months and there is no default in respect of the payments due for three consecutive instalments, the debtor is allowed to pay his debt in the course of nine years under normal conditions and to pay the entire balance of the debt that may remain before the end of the eighteenth instalment. It may also be mentioned here that, though the period for the payment of the first instalment was fixed in the Act to be within six months of the date of the Debt Relief Act, that was extended till 21st Edavom 1116 by a subsequent Proclamation. The provision relating to the default of three consecutive instalments was also the subject of a discussion and decision in Pachi Amma v. Raman Pillai 1944 T. L. R. 381. It was laid down in that case that there was no liberty reserved to the debtor to pay the instalment as he chose, that the instalments should be paid one after another in regular succession which was the manner of payment contemplated by the Act, that the language of the Act made it clear that the default of payment referred to was the non-payment of the amount and not the actual payment of the amount on an over due date, that when a default occurred, say in the second instalment, and the money was paid after the due date the default, ceased to be a defaulter that the subsequent payment made must be appropriated to that portion of the debt that fell due earlier and that the three consecutive defaults were to be reckoned with reference to such calculation and appropriation. Thus, if accounts were taken on the date of a particular instalment, it should be seen that the debtor had not left in arrears the amount due for three instalments. That is the only condition that will help the debtor from forfeiting the privileges sanctioned by the Debt Relief Act. Thus, if accounts were taken on the date of a particular instalment, it should be seen that the debtor had not left in arrears the amount due for three instalments. That is the only condition that will help the debtor from forfeiting the privileges sanctioned by the Debt Relief Act. If as in the present case, the last instalment is fixed to be the 16th instalment, the provisions under section 9 (1) entitling the debtor to discharge the debt in 9 years will be rendered nugatory. All the provisions in the section are to be taken together and interpreted in such a way as to give each provision a legitimate and reasonable interpretation so as to fit in with all the provisions within the scheme envisaged in the Debt Relief Act. If, as in this case, the debtor had paid 15 instalments without default and if a balance remained, it was then open to him to pay such balance before the expiry of nine years; and if he does so he can get all the benefits under the Debt Relief Act. In this view, it is seen that the order of the lower court is clearly wrong. It is set aside and the appeal is allowed with costs. The lower court will enter the decree as satisfied. The amount that was found due on 28th Chingam 1124 was only Fs. 221-0-6. This, with 4 per cent interest till 29th Kumbhom 1124, when he deposited Fs. 997-2-0, will be given credit to the decree-holder and the balance refunded to the judgment-debtor. Allowed.