JUDGMENT M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. In this C.R.P. the decree-holder seeks revision of an order permitting the respondent, who is the legal representative of the 3rd defendant, to discharge the decree debt under S.4 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958 (which will be referred to herein below as the Act). The contention is that the respondent having sold away the decree schedule property and having no personal liability is not a debtor and therefore cannot invoke the Act to his aid. The court below found that as per the definition in S.2 (c) of the Act any debt incurred by an agriculturist, whether the debtor who is liable to pay it at the commencement of the Act be an agriculturist or not, comes within the scope of the Act, that S.4 does not limit the benefits thereof to agriculturist-debtors, and that therefore the respondent is entitled to have the debt discharged under S.4 of the Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-decree-holder contends that only an agriculturist-debtor can invoke the benefits of S.4 of the Act. He relies on the preamble to the Act "Whereas it is considered necessary to provide for the relief of indebted agriculturists in the State of Kerala; Be it enacted " and contends that the Act is intended only to provide relief to agriculturists and cannot be extended in its operation to any other class of debtors. I am unable to accept this contention. 3. The preamble of an Act is never understood to control its enacting part. Whatever may have been the intention of the legislature expressed in the preamble, if the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, they have to be enforced according to their plain meaning. Unless there be any ambiguity in the meaning of a particular provision in the Act, the preamble cannot be referred to restrict or enlarge the plain meaning of that provision. It may be that even in providing for relief of agriculturists' indebtedness the Legislature may have deliberately provided for relief of some other debtors also. It is not rarely that we come across statutes with their enacting parts extending beyond the ambit of the respective preambles. In construing a statute we must assume that the Legislature has said what it meant & meant exactly what it has said in the statute. 4. It is not rarely that we come across statutes with their enacting parts extending beyond the ambit of the respective preambles. In construing a statute we must assume that the Legislature has said what it meant & meant exactly what it has said in the statute. 4. If the contention of the learned counsel for the decree-holder is accepted, it follows that only debts which are due by agriculturists can come within the operation of the Act. S.2 (c) of the Act reads: "(C) "debt" means any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from or incurred by an agriculturist on or before the commencement of this Act, whether payable under a contract or under a decree or order of any Court, or otherwise,..........." Here the word'debt' is defined in the Act to mean any liability "due from or incurred by an agriculturist." To accept the interpretation advanced by the decree-holder is to ignore the expression "incurred by" in this definition. A construction that ignores or nullifies a part of the enacted provision can never be accepted. 5. Nor is there anything in S.4 of the Act to indicate that agriculturist-debtors shall be the only beneficiaries of the concessions provided in that section. It says unreservedly that any debt, meaning thereby any debt coming within the definition in the Act, may be discharged by repayment in seventeen half-yearly instalments. It provides: "4. Payment of debt in instalments. - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract or in any decree or order of court, any debt may be discharged in the manner specified in sub-section (2). (2) If any debt is repaid in seventeen equal half-yearly instalments together, with interest, accrued due on the principal debt outstanding at the commencement of this Act till he date of payment of each instalment at the rate of 5 per cent per annum or the contract rate, whichever is less, the first instalment being payable before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of commencement of this Act and the remaining instalments being payable on or before the date of expiry of a period of six months from the last day on which the previous instalment was due, the whole debt shall be deemed to be discharged. (3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to mortgages to which S.11 applies except as provided in sub-section (6) of that section." 6. The learned counsel for the decree-holder contends that the word "repaid" in S.4 of the Act indicates that only agriculturist-debtors are contemplated by that section. According to him, debt being defined as a liability of an agriculturist, only an agriculturist can be a debtor within the scope of the Act, and it is only when a debt is paid by the debtor himself to the creditor can it be said to be "repaid" In short the argument is that one who was not paid cannot re-pay it. He however concedes that if a debt is originally incurred by an agriculturist and has been assigned to another agriculturist the latter can discharge the same under S.4 and the expression "repaid" in the section will cover him also. If the word "repaid" can extend to assignees of one category, it must equally extend to assignees of all categories. If repayment can only be by the debtor who got the loan no assignee can come within the scope of that expression. But if the expression is extended to an assignee, then there is no reason why such extension of the word be limited to particular assignees only. It is pertinent to note in this connection that in Rahina Beevi v. Liquidator (1957 KLT. 809) construing the similar provision of the earlier Act, a purchaser of the hypotheca, though not personally liable for the debt, was held entitled to the benefits of the Act in discharging the same. Though in Varghese v. Palai Central Bank Ltd. (1959 KLT. 955) the case was remitted back in similar circumstances to consider if the assignee of the debt was an agriculturist the competency of non-agriculturists to repay the debt under S.4 does not appear to have been adverted to by the court. The definition of 'debt' in S.2(c) as inclusive of a liability 'incurred by', but not'due from' an agriculturist at the material date, and the significant omission of any reference to agriculturists in S.4 make it, in my opinion, clear that any debt within the definition of the Act is amenable to be discharged under S.4 of the Act. The contention that the legislature contemplated only agriculturist debtors to bo the exclusive beneficiaries under S.4 cannot therefore be accepted. The contention that the legislature contemplated only agriculturist debtors to bo the exclusive beneficiaries under S.4 cannot therefore be accepted. It is not contended that the debt covered by this decree is not one that has been incurred by an agriculturist. 7. No argument was advanced, based on the assignment of the hypotheca by the respondent; probably the 3rd defendant was personally liable for the decree debt and the respondent is possessed of his other assets answerable for the debt. 8. The order of the court below holding the respondent entitled to the benefit of the Act is therefore correct. The C. R. P fails. It is dismissed. No costs.