Judgment :- 1. This is a revision by the petitioner in the lower court to revise the order of the learned District Judge of Kottayam dated 30-5-1959 and passed in C. M. P. 64/59 in O.S. 19/1107. 2. The petitioner filed an application in 0. S.19/1107 under S.22 (1) (a) of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958, Kerala Act 31/58, for setting aside a sale held in execution of the decree in that suit. 3. The short facts that led up to the filing of the said application by the petitioner are as follows:- The third defendant in O.S. 19/1107 District Court, Kottayam, had executed a Chitty hypothecation bond in favour of the respondent herein. The respondent instituted O. S.19/1107 to enforce the security bond and by virtue of a compromise, obtained a decree. In execution of the said decree, the respondent-decree¬holder brought to sale the items bearing Survey Nos. 27/3 and 27/4 inclusive of a building that stood on one of the items namely, Survey No. 27/3. The properties were sold on 29-1-1121 and purchased by the respondent-decree-holder. 4. The third defendant in the said suit was adjudicated an insolvent in I. P. 6/1106 on 19-8-1108, and the Official Receiver took charge of his estate. The Official Receiver sold the property Survey No. 27/4 on 25-4-1114 to one Ittan Abraham who, according to the present petitioner, is a benamidar for her. The sale was subject to the mortgage decree in O. S.19/1107. 5. Again the Jenmi of the properties obtained a decree in O. S.333/1107 for arrears of Michavaram, and Survey No. 27/3 was sold on 29-1-1115 in execution of the said decree. The Jenmi assigned his rights under the decree to one Mathu Chacko, brother of the present petitioner. The petitioner also claims that this purchase by her brother is really a benami for her. The present petitioner appears to have filed C. M. P. 1635/1121 on 6-11-111 in O.S.19/1107, obstructing delivery of possession to the decree-holder¬respondent. The present petitioner partly succeeded and partly lost in the said application. Both the petitioner and the respondent-decree-holder took up the matter to the Travancore-Cochin High Court by way of two revisions - C.R.P. 335/54 being by the present petitioner and C. R. P. 290/54 being by the respondent-decree holder. The present petitioner partly succeeded and partly lost in the said application. Both the petitioner and the respondent-decree-holder took up the matter to the Travancore-Cochin High Court by way of two revisions - C.R.P. 335/54 being by the present petitioner and C. R. P. 290/54 being by the respondent-decree holder. A Full Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court considered these two C.R.Ps., and the decision is reported in Padmanabhan v. Narayanan (1955 K.L.T. 413). The actual decision in those two C. R. Ps., has no bearing on the present controversy. But it is significant that the present petitioner while obstructing the delivery, took up the definite stand that she has got independent title as owner to the suit properties & it is by virtue of that right she was obstructing the delivery. She never claimed to be the benamidar of the third defendant, the judgment-debtor in 0. S.19/1107, the basis on which the present application claiming relief under Kerala Act 31/1958 has been filed. 6. The present application out of which the C. R. P. arises, was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the sale on the basis that the third defendant in O. S.19/1107 was a benamidar for her and that she is the judgment-debtor in that suit. 7. The learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a judgment-debtor who is entitled to maintain an application under S.22 (1) (a) of the said Act, There is no decree against the petitioner and there is also no order passed against the petitioner in execution. The learned judge also relied upon the stand taken by the present petitioner in C. R. Ps. 335 and 290 of 1954 to the effect that she was the absolute owner of the properties in her own independent right. On this reasoning the learned judge came to the conclusion that the application is not maintainable by the petitioner and as such dismissed the same. 8. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. K. K. Mathew, learned counsel, has contended that the order of the learned District Judge is erroneous. According to Mr. Mathew, the Official Receiver in whom the estate of the third defendant in O. S.19 of 1107 vested, could have maintained an application of this nature, as a judgment-debtor. Therefore, the purchaser from the Official Receiver, namely, Ittan Abraham could have filed an application as a judgment-debtor. According to Mr. Mathew, the Official Receiver in whom the estate of the third defendant in O. S.19 of 1107 vested, could have maintained an application of this nature, as a judgment-debtor. Therefore, the purchaser from the Official Receiver, namely, Ittan Abraham could have filed an application as a judgment-debtor. Therefore, it follows that the present petitioner who is the real owner of the properties is entitled to file an application as "judgment-debtor". The learned counsel also referred me to certain decisions of the Madras High Court under Madras Agriculturists Relief Act where certain persons have been held to be judgment-debtors entitled to apply under S.19 of Madras Act 4/1938. The learned counsel also relied upon S.146 of the C. P. C., as giving a right to his client to file the present application. 9. I do not think it necessary to refer to the decisions of the Madras High Court, because those decisions had no occasion to consider the case of a benamidar. In my opinion, the learned judge was justified in rejecting the application. The petitioner, as mentioned earlier, took up the stand in C. R. Ps. 335 and 290 of 1954 that she is the absolute owner in Her own independent right and she had nothing with the 3rd defendant in O. S.19/1107. The plea that the third defendant in O. S.19/1107 was her benamidar was never raised in those proceedings. 10. In my opinion, it would be very dangerous to allow the question of a benami transaction being allowed to be made the subject of a controversy in an application under S.22 of the Kerala Act 31/1958. The term "'Agriculturist" has been defined in S.2 (a) of the Act. Again, the term'debt' has also been defined in S.2 (c) of the Act. S.22 gives a right to an'agriculturist' whose immovable properties have been sold in execution of any decree to apply for setting aside the sale, if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. Again, S.22, Clause.1, sub-clause (ii) makes it a condition that property should not have passed from the judgment-debtor, to the purchaser and it is to 'such judgment-debtor' that a right is given to apply. Again, S.22, Clause.1, sub-clause (ii) makes it a condition that property should not have passed from the judgment-debtor, to the purchaser and it is to 'such judgment-debtor' that a right is given to apply. Therefore, in my opinion, the section clearly contemplates that the agriculturist-judgment-debtor was an actual party to the decree and whose interest has been sold on or after 1st November 1956, or before 1st November 1956, but possession has not actually passed before 20th November 1957 to the purchaser. In my opinion, it is a special right conferred only in favour of the judgment-debtor who can satisfy the conditions mentioned in S.22 (1) and it does not contemplate any outsider filing an application for relief under the said section, on the ground that the original judgment-debtor is a benamidar for him It would be very dangerous to allow such a person to file an application claiming relief because it will lead to very disastrous consequences. For instance, if the judgment-debtor on record, is hot an 'agriculturist' and is not entitled to relief under this Act, the judgment-debtor and an outsider who will be an 'agriculturist' within the definition in the Act, may collude together and the latter can come up to the court and claim relief on the ground that the original judgment-debtor was a benamidar for him and that therefore, he is really the judgment-debtor entitled to relief. 11. I do not think, the Act contemplates any such contingency. The petitioner claimed originally as an owner having independent title without any reference to the third defendant therein, and now she comes forth and says that she is the judgment-debtor in O. S.19/1107 and as such entitled to file an application to set aside the court sale. A benamidar is not contemplated as a judgment debtor under the clear wording of the section. In either view, the C. R. P. fails and is dismissed with costs.