Judgement JUDGMENT : The only point on which this appeal is sought to be filed is that the lower court should have considered that the owelties or adjustments for and against made in a partition suit for equalisation of shares amongst coparceners would by itself constitute a debt to be scaled down within the meaning of Madras Act, IV of 1938, and that therefore the coparcener who has been asked to make good what he was not entitled to would get that amount scaled down under the provisions of the said Act, IV of 1938. 2. This point was considered by me in Na-rayana Kutti Menon v. Janaki Ammal, AAO No, 228 of 1955 (Mad) (A), specifically no doubt with reference to Act, I of 1955, but principle enunciated therein is equally applicable to Act IV of 1938 also and which has also been cited by the lower court wherein I have stated : "O. S. No. 28 of 1948 was a suit for partition. In that suit under the final decree amounts due to the various parceners were equalised and some of the parceners were made to pay the other parceners to equalise the amounts due. The properties now proclaimed for sale were allotted to the share of the petitioners in pursuance of the final decree directing payments of certain amounts to the respondents by way of equalisation of shares. It is also significant that payments by some of the parceners who got larger shares to others who got lesser shares so that there may be equalisation of all shares carried no interest whatsoever. But apparently this Madras Act, 1 of 1955 which has become in these parts a talisman for protracting and prolonging proceedings has been taken advantage of and straightway an application has been filed that these partition proceedings should be stayed on the foot that these are all debts coming within the meaning of the said Act. The learned Subordinate Judge could not naturally countenance such an outrageous abuse of the Act and so rejected the application for stay and hence the present appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge could not naturally countenance such an outrageous abuse of the Act and so rejected the application for stay and hence the present appeal. I am in entire agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge that these payments which have to toe made by certain parceners who got larger shares to others who got a smaller share, were intended for working out the equalisation of the shares of the parties and they are certainly not debts within the meaning of Act, 1 of 1955 entitling the parties to pay. There has been no suit for recovery of the debt. There was a suit for partition and under the terms Of the final decree certain payments were directed to be made by one party to another for equalisation of the shares of all the parceners and there was no provision for payment of interest On the other hand, a reading of the Act would show that the agriculturist debtor is entitled to pay within four months of the commencement of the Act the interest due on any debt by him up to the commencement of the Act and one-eighth of the principal amount outstanding or one-fourth of the total amount outstanding whichever is less. The balance of the debt is payable in three equal instalments. It will be seen how this is a far cry from the present case arising out of equalisation of shares in a partition and where a party retaining a larger share who has to account for a particular amount wants to nullify the terms of the decree, namely, retain the benefits of the decree without in any way giving sums by way of equalisation to other sharers by resorting to the provisions of Act 1 of 1955 on the foot that these equalisations are forsooth debts coming within the meaning of the said Act." 3.Owelty (see terms De La Ley per Strouds Judicial Dictionary, 3rd Edn. Vol. 3, page 2056) as has been pointed out in Story on Equity, 3rd Edn. page 277; para 654, Lawrence on Equity Jurisprudence, 1929, Vol. 1, page 1227, Freemans Co-tenancy and Partition, 1886 Edn. page 672, para 507, is pecuniary compensation given so as to prevent injustice or avoidable inequality and with a view to the more convenient and perfect partition of immoveable property (See Swaminatha Odayar v. O. R.. page 277; para 654, Lawrence on Equity Jurisprudence, 1929, Vol. 1, page 1227, Freemans Co-tenancy and Partition, 1886 Edn. page 672, para 507, is pecuniary compensation given so as to prevent injustice or avoidable inequality and with a view to the more convenient and perfect partition of immoveable property (See Swaminatha Odayar v. O. R.. West Tanjore, 1957 SCJ 501 at p. 506 : ( (S) AIR 1957 SC 577 at p. 581) (B). Owelty, equality or compensation can never be the debt contemplated under Act, IV of 1938 namely, (a) an obligation incurred by the debtor, (b) a liability on the part of the debtor to pay for that obligation at a certain date (Ramanatha Iyers Law Lexicon, M. L. J. pp 930 and 292). 4. There are no merits in this appeal and I see no grounds to admit the same and dismiss it. Appeal dismissed.