Judgment :- 1. The three petitioners in E.A. No. 952 of 1958 in O.S. No. 99 of 1107 of the Munsiff's Court of Thodupuzha are the petitioners before us. The two respondents were the respondents in that application. 2. The application was for relief under S.22 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958. It was rejected by the Court below. 3. The two items of property specified in the schedule to E.A. No. 952 of 1958 belonged to the first petitioner, Thomman Chacko. He executed a simple mortgage in respect of those items in favour of two brothers, Ouseph Chacko and Ouseph Ouseph on 4-8-1105. They filed O.S. No. 99 of 1107 on the basis of the mortgage in their favour on 14-4-1107. The suit was decreed on 6-5-1107. 4. Varghese Ulahannan, the father of the respondents, instituted a suit O.S. No. 359 of 1108, against Ouseph Ouseph and obtained a decree. He attached Ouseph Ouseph's one-half share in the decree in O.S. No. 99 of 1107 and as attaching decree-holder executed that decree. In the court sale held on 13-4-1111 he purchased one-half share in the mortgaged properties. 5. Ext. D 2 is the sale certificate in favour of Varghese Ulahannan. In pursuance of the sale, delivery was effected of the undivided one-half share in the mortgaged properties. The delivery reports are Ext. D 3 dated 3-2-1114 and Ext. D4 dated 12-12-1114. 6. Varghese Ulahannan thereafter instituted a suit O.S. No. 543 of 1117, for partition of the one-half share by metes & bounds. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. A preliminary decree for partition, however, was granted in the appeal filed by him. Ext. D 5 dated 19-11-1954 is the judgment of the appellate court. 7. After Ext. D 5 the final decree was passed. Ext. D6 dated 22-11-1956 is the final decree. 8. After executing the simple mortgage which led up to the decree in O. S. No. 99 of 1107, the first petitioner, Thomman Chacko, also executed another simple mortgage on 17-9-1106 in favour of the third petitioner, Mathai Scaria, and his brother Mathai Iype. The third petitioner instituted a suit on the basis of that mortgage O.S. No. 125 of 1122, on 21-12-1122. His brother Mathai Iype was the fourth defendant in that suit. The prior mortgagees Ouseph Chacko and Ouseph Ouseph or their successors-in-interest were not parties of the suit. 9. The third petitioner instituted a suit on the basis of that mortgage O.S. No. 125 of 1122, on 21-12-1122. His brother Mathai Iype was the fourth defendant in that suit. The prior mortgagees Ouseph Chacko and Ouseph Ouseph or their successors-in-interest were not parties of the suit. 9. O. S. No. 125 of 1122 was decreed on 7-2-1123. Ext. P3 is the decree in that suit. The properties were sold in execution of that decree on 29-7-1123. Ext. P1 dated 11-11-1123 is the sale certificate. 10. The third petitioner filed a petition alleging that he had obtained delivery of the properties sold in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 125 of 1122 and objecting to their delivery to the respondents in pursuance of the final decree in O. S. No. 543 of 1117. That petition is pending disposal in the Court below. 11. After the execution of the two simple mortgages mentioned above, the first petitioner executed a settlement deed in favour of his two sons Chacko Chacko and Chacko Mathai. The settlement deed also reserved a right for his own maintenance charged on one acre of the properties concerned. After the execution of the settlement deed, the first petitioner and his two sons sold the items to Mathai Iype, the fourth defendant in O. S. No. 125 of 1122. Ext. D 1 dated 15-4-1107 is the sale deed in favour of Mathai Iype. One of the two sons of the first petitioner, Chacko Chacko, is the second petitioner before us. The first petitioner, both his sons, and Mathai Iype were parties to O.S. No. 543 of 1117. 12. S.22 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, provides that the judgment-debtor may, "notwithstanding anything in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, or in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or in the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force, and notwithstanding that the sale has been confirmed", invoke the benefit of that section. 12. S.22 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, provides that the judgment-debtor may, "notwithstanding anything in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, or in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or in the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force, and notwithstanding that the sale has been confirmed", invoke the benefit of that section. "Where any immovable property in which an agriculturist had an interest has been foreclosed, or sold, either in execution of any decree or under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force, for the recovery of a debt due to a creditor or to a banking company, as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949, in liquidation - [i] on or after 1st November, 1956; or [ii] before 1st November, 1956, but the possession of the said property has not actually passed before 20th November 1957, from the judgment-debtor to the purchaser". As already pointed out, the sale concerned was on 13-4-1111, i. e., before 1-11-1956. 13. The contentions of the respondents were that the petition was unsustainable as: [1] none of the petitioners had any interest in the property at the time of the sale; [2] none of them was a judgment-debtor at the time of the petition; and [3] possession had actually passed to the purchaser before 20-11-1957. All the three contentions were accepted by the Court below. 14. We have come to the conclusion that the third contention has to be upheld and that in view of that, it is unnecessary to deal with the other two contentions. The delivery reports concerned are Ext. D3 dated 3-2-1114 and Ext. D4 dated 12-12-1114. Both of them were prior to 20-11-1957. 15. It is true that what was sold and delivered was an undivided one-half share in the mortgaged properties. This, however, cannot affect the question. Possession in the context can only mean such possession as the judgment-debtor had and which the purchaser could get. As pointed out in Freeman's Cotenancy: " If A and B together own personal property of which A is in actual possession, and B sells his moiety to C, the possession of A immediately becomes the possession of C also". [2nd Edition, page 244] The words used in the section are "but the possession of the said property has not actually passed". [2nd Edition, page 244] The words used in the section are "but the possession of the said property has not actually passed". The nature of the possession nowhere is specified as "actual physical possession". 16. Our attention was drawn to AIR. 1955 Madras 288 wherein it was held that there can be "no delivery, either symbolical or actual, in pursuance of the sale of an undivided interest in joint family property" and that "it is not competent to a court on a mere application for execution by a purchaser of such an undivided share to pass an order directing delivery of possession", and to 1952 KLT.195. The latter case was followed in 1953 DLR. TC. 206. 17. What was held in 1952 KLT.195 will be clear from the following extract from the head-note to that decision: "The court auction-purchaser cannot be given actual possession pursuant to his sale certificate and his remedy is to obtain possession of his share after effecting a division of the property by metes and bounds. The court cannot on a mere application for execution by such purchaser enforce his right by an order for partition. The law on the point is not different for joint tenants and tenants-in-common. The alienee of the right, title and interest of a joint tenant is only a co-tenant with the other joint tenants of the alienor's family". Apart from the fact that symbolical delivery has as a matter of fact been given and that the orders in that behalf have not been vacated in appropriate proceedings, there can be no doubt that if the passing of possession contemplated in S.22 is not actual physical possession but only such possession as the judgment-debtor had and which the purchaser could get - as held by us in Para.15 above - there can be no doubt that such possession did pass prior to 20-11-1957 and that the petitioners cannot claim any relief under S.22. 18. In the light of what is stated above, the lower Court's decision that the petition under S.22 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, is unsustainable has to be upheld and this Civil Revision Petition dismissed. The petition is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.