Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench for decision as it involves the question "whether a decree for cash into which a loan in kind has merged before the date of the Kerala Act XXXI of 1958 can be re-opened and amended in terms of Explanation II to S.2 (c) of the said Act". 2. The decree in this case was obtained on a simple mortgage deed of 7-4-1111 executed by the first defendant in favour of the decree-holder's deceased father. The debt covered by the mortgage was a sum of Rs. 768/- and 1792 paras and 31/4 edangalies of paddy. There was provision in the deed for capitalising interest in arrears and for payment of interest on such capitalised sum. The plaintiff valued paddy at Re.1 As. 13 Ps. 6 in the plaint and sued for recovery of such value. The suit was decreed on 1-4-1952 valuing paddy at the rate adopted in the plaint. When the decree-holder took out execution, the first defendant applied under S.7 of Act XXXI of 1958 (Kerala) for amendment of the decree according to the provisions of the Act. According to the first defendant, paddy was to be valued at the rate prevailing on the date of transaction, i. e., 7-4-1111, and the decree had to be amended accordingly. This was disallowed and the first defendant has therefore preferred this petition. 3. The only point arising for decision is whether paddy should be valued at the price prevailing on the date of the mortgage deed. The appellant relied on the definition of 'debt' in S.2(c) of the Act and Explanation II under the section. The relevant provisions may be extracted: Section 2(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, and includes any debt or balance of debt due at the commencement of this Act under the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Repayment of Debts) Act, 1955, or the Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists Relief Act, 1956, It ................................................ (The exceptions are omitted) Explanation II "Where the debt is a liability in kind, the value of the commodity shall be commuted at the market rate prevailing on the date on which the debt was incurred." The definition of debt includes a liability in cash or kind. The debt had become converted into a debt for money long before the Act came into force and it has to be viewed as such, even though what was borrowed was paddy. Explanation II uses present tense, and says "where the debt is a liability in kind" so that what is material is the nature of the debt on the date on which the Act came into force. On that date the debt in question was a liability for payment of money under a decree and not a ‘liability in kind', and Explanation II cannot apply to such a debt. The decree cannot therefore be amended as prayed for by the first defendant. This is the view taken by the learned District Judge and we confirm the same. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed, but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs. Dismissed.