Judgment :- 1.The only question for decision in this civil revision petition is whether the Munsiff's Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under S.9 (3) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act. 1958 (Act 31 of 1958). The learned Munsiff held that the court had jurisdiction; hence this civil revision petition by respondents 4 to 13, and 19. 2. The allegations in the petition may be briefly stated: The debtor-petitioner who is the first respondent here sold the three items of immovable property described in the schedule annexed to the petition to the first respondent in the court below on 1st May 1948 for Rs. 2,000. There was an agreement that the properties would be conveyed back to the petitioner on payment of the said sum. When the first respondent demanded payment of Rs. 2,000 the petitioner caused him to transfer the properties to the second respondent on 14th August 1950 for Rs. 3,000 which sum included Rs. 1,000 borrowed by the petitioner from the second respondent. The petitioner had borrowed some money from the third respondent and he caused the second respondent to transfer the properties to the third respondent on 15th March 1951 for Rs. 7,000 inclusive of Rs. 3,000 and interest due to the second respondent and the amount borrowed by him from the third respondent. There was a similar sale by the third respondent, to respondents 4 to 19 for Rs. 15,000 out of which the balance after paying Rs. 7,000 and interest to the third respondent was received by the petitioner. According to the petitioner all the vendors had agreed to reconvey the properties to the petitioner on payment of the respective sums advanced by them and the consideration under each sale deed was a debt incurred by him. He further alleged that the debt due to respondents 4 to 19 was only Rs. 15,000 and interest at 51/2 per cent, i. e., Rs. 20,420, out of which Rs. 20,000 had to be deemed discharged by the income of the property taken by, respondents 4 to 19, the annual income being estimated at Rs. 3,000. Respondents 4 to 19 contended inter alia that the Munsiff's Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition regarding the alleged debt of Rs. 20,420. As stated earlier this point was found against them. 3. 3,000. Respondents 4 to 19 contended inter alia that the Munsiff's Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition regarding the alleged debt of Rs. 20,420. As stated earlier this point was found against them. 3. Under S.2 (b) 'Court' has been defined as "any court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery or discharge of a debt". The question is whether the debt in this case is Rs. 20,420 for purposes of S.9 (3) or only Rs. 420 which is stated to be the balance after adjusting the income of the properties. Section 9 reads as follows: "9. (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or in any other law for the time being in force, any agriculturist may apply to the court to re-open any subsisting transaction, whether reduced to writing or not, on the ground that it is really a transaction, of debt or that the amount mentioned in the transaction is not the actual amount and may plead, adduce evidence and prove such grounds. Thereupon the court shall ascertain whether the transaction is a debt or the amount mentioned in the transaction is the actual amount of the debt and pass an order in conformity with the other provisions of this Act. Explanation.- In this sub-section, the expression "Court" shall include any officer or authority appointed by the Government to exercise the functions of a Court under this sub-section. (2) xxxxx (3) Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in the case of any transaction entered into on or after 1st January 1946 and purporting to be a sale of immovable property or a lease of usufructs, any agriculturist who is a party to the transaction may plead, adduce evidence and prove that the transaction is really a debt and thereupon the amount advanced shall be deemed to be the principal of the debt and the income from the property or the value of the usufructs, as the case may be, shall be appropriated towards interest calculated at the rate specified in S.5 on the principal and the balance, if any, towards the principal. The amount, if any, outstanding after such appropriation together with the value of improvements, if any, effected by the creditor shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-ss. The amount, if any, outstanding after such appropriation together with the value of improvements, if any, effected by the creditor shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-ss. (2), (3) and (5) of S.11, as if the transaction were a usufructuary mortgage and the rights of the creditor and the debtor shall be governed, as far as may be, by the provisions of the said sub-sections: Provided that the sub-section shall not affect the rights of bona fide alienees of the creditor deriving rights before 20th November 1957. (4) For applications under sub-section (1) court fees shall be paid as if they were suits for the same reliefs" 4. This section contemplates the determination of two matters: (1) whether a transaction of sale or lease of usufructs of immovable property is really a debt, and (2) if so, the determination of the balance payable after appropriating the income of the property towards interest and principal of the debt. It is further provided that the amount advanced shall be deemed to be the principal of the debt. S.9 read with S.2 (b) makes it clear that for purposes of jurisdiction the debt is the principal sum and interest if any as provided in S.5 of the Act. The court has to decide whether this sum is a debt for the purpose of the Act. The court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery or discharge of such a debt is the court which should entertain an application under S.9(3). 5. The provision in clause (4) that court fees shall be paid as if such applications were suits for the same reliefs supports this view. The relief sought is to treat the consideration for the sale as a debt and to deduct therefrom the income of the property, i. e„ to reduce the debt of Rs. 20,420 to Rs. 420 by treating part of it as discharged. Court fee is therefore leviable on Rs. 20,420. To hold otherwise would mean that whatever be the amount of the debt, the debtor can put an arbitrary figure as the balance due and thus escape payment of court fees on the proper sum. 6. In view of the above finding it has to be held that the Munsiff's Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the court below is reversed. 6. In view of the above finding it has to be held that the Munsiff's Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the court below is reversed. The petition under S.9 will be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the proper court. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. Allowed.