ORDER : 1. The only question that is raised in this Civil Revision Petition is regarding the nature of a decree-debt, namely, whether it is covered by S. 2 [c] [vii] of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act or not. The petitioner before me is the assignee-decree-holder and the respondent the 1st defendant-judgment-debtor. On 16-2-119 the assignors of the decree sold certain immovable properties to the judgment-debtor for Rs.7000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.3000/- was reserved with the vendee to pay off a mortgage subsisting on the property and to pay off other personal debts of the vendors. There was a further stipulation in the document that, if the amount reserved was found insufficient to discharge the aforesaid liabilities, the vendors would pay the balance and if there remained any balance after the payment of the liabilities mentioned in the document, the vendee should pay back the balance. Subsequently the vendors filed a suit to recover an amount of Rs.1000/- on the basis that the amount was the balance of unpaid purchase money and the decree, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings, was obtained creating a charge on the property. Thereafter the decree was assigned to the petitioner. When the decree was sought to be executed in the lower court, the vendee-judgment-debtor claimed relief under the Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, whereupon the petitioner claimed that the debt was excluded by S. 2 [c] [vii], the debt being a liability for which a charge was provided under sub-section [b] of Cl. 4 of S. 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1832. The contention was rejected by the lower court and hence the present revision. The lower court relied on a Full Bench decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in coming to this conclusion and the decision is Rama Panicker v. Rama Panicker and others, 1954 K.L.T. 311, wherein there is an observation to the effect that no question of unpaid purchase money, and much less any charge for it, would arise in respect of an amount left with the vendee to discharge a debt charged on the property vended. The learned advocate of the respondent also laid stress on this observation in support of his case He further argued that the Transfer of Property Act was made applicable to the State of Travancore-Cochin only in 1951 and the sale involved in the present case being prior to 1951, S. 2 [c] [vii] could not apply to this case. I shall dispose of the second objection first. What is contemplated by S. 2 [c] [vii] is not the actual subsistence of a charge under S. 55 [4] [b] of the Transfer of Property Act; but what is excepted under this clause is a liability for which a charge is provided under sub-clause [b] of clause 4 of S. 55 of the Transfer of Property Act. This only means that sub-clause [vii] of Section 2 [c] specifies a category of liability to which the Act does not apply and nothing turns on the actual subsistence of the charge. For this view there is support in a recent case of this Court, Amarnatha Menon v. Malathy Amma, 1960 K.L.T. 10. Therefore the only question is whether the decree-debt now before me is a liability of the category for which a charge is provided under Section 55 [4] [b] of the Transfer of Property Act. If I come to the conclusion that the decree is such a liability, then the fact whether at the date of the sale the Transfer of Property Act applied to the sale or not is of no consequence. This leads me to the next question, i.e., whether the decree-debt falls within Section 2 [c] [vii]. The observation of the Full Bench is to the effect that when a property is sold free of encumbrances and an amount is left with the vendee to discharge a mortgage on the property sold, the vendor cannot claim a charge for the said amount on the property on the basis of the amount being unpaid purchase money. To me it appears that the position in this case is very different from a case coming within the aforesaid observation of the Full Bench. In the present case there is a provision for the payment of the balance of purchase money that remained after the discharge of not only the mortgage on the property but also other personal debts of the vendors. In the present case there is a provision for the payment of the balance of purchase money that remained after the discharge of not only the mortgage on the property but also other personal debts of the vendors. Further, on the basis of the amount being balance of unpaid purchase money a suit was filed and a decree obtained with a charge on the property and on this basis the assignment of the decree also took place. I have perused the sale deed also. On an interpretation of the provisions of the sale deed and in view of the allegations in the plaint and the consequent recitals in the decree to the effect that the amount was balance of unpaid purchase money, I am of opinion that the decree comes within the scope of, S. 2 (c) (vii) of the Agriculturists Debt Relief Act. In this view I allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order of the lower court. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Allowed .