Judgment :- 1. The only question that arises for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is whether an insolvent can make an application for relief under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act. The lower court has held that he can maintain an application and one of the creditors in the insolvency has questioned the correctness of this decision in the Civil Revision Petition. 2. The application for adjudicating the debtor as an insolvent was filed on 29th June, 1958. Pending the application the Debt Relief Act came into force on 14th July, 1958, and thereafter on 30th September, 1958 the debtor was adjudicated insolvent. Subsequently the insolvent filed an application on 14th November, 1958 claiming relief under the Debt Relief Act. The Official Receiver and all the creditors in the insolvency were respondents in the petition. As we have already indicated, the lower court held that the petition was maintainable and one of the creditors has filed the present revision. It may also be mentioned that the Official Receiver is also a respondent before us. 3. Before we consider the relevant provisions of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act we would dispose of one argument based on a provision of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act of 1938. In that Act S.21 (2) provides that in a case where a dividend has not been declared prior to the commencement of the Act, the court shall on application made by the insolvent-debtor, the Official Assignee or Official Receiver in whom the property of such debtor is vested, or any other person interested; apply the provisions of the Act to the debts payable by the insolvent debtor, if he would have been an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act but for his adjudication in insolvency. It is contended on the basis of this provision that the agriculturist-debtor, who is adjudicated insolvent, would not have been competent to claim the benefits of the Agriculturists Relief Act but for this provision. It is further contended that the insolvent would have been an agriculturist only if the adjudication in insolvency were not there; for, the provision reads that the court shall apply the provisions of the Act to the debts payable by the insolvent, if he would have been an agriculturist but for his adjudication in insolvency. It is further contended that the insolvent would have been an agriculturist only if the adjudication in insolvency were not there; for, the provision reads that the court shall apply the provisions of the Act to the debts payable by the insolvent, if he would have been an agriculturist but for his adjudication in insolvency. Putting it differently the argument amounts to this: that, but for a special provision allowing the insolvent or the Official Receiver to claim the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, the insolvent or the Official Receiver would not have been competent to apply for relief under the said Act and since there is no provision like that in the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act the insolvent-debtor and the Official Receiver are precluded from maintaining any application for relief under the Act. In answer to this contention the learned advocate of the respondents urges that the definition of 'agriculturist' in the Madras Act is substantially different from the one in the Kerala Act. In the Madras Act, the learned counsel points out, 'agriculturist' means a person who has a saleable interest in any agricultural or horticultural land, whereas in the Kerala Act 'agriculturist' means a person who has an interest, other than as a simple mortgagee, in any agricultural or horticultural land. According to him this definition of 'agriculturist' in the Madras Act as a person who has a saleable interest in any agricultural or horticultural land necessitated the enactment of a provision like S. 21 (2) in that Act & in view of the wider scope of the term 'agriculturist' in the Kerala Act such a provision was unnecessary and therefore the legislature did not enact a similar provision in the Kerala Act. Whatever might be the soundness or otherwise of the above contention, we are concerned only with the provisions in the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act and if we come to a conclusion on interpreting such provisions one way or other, we do not think it is necessary that we should go into the reason behind or the effect of S.21 (2) in the Madras Act. Therefore we would proceed to consider the question before us in the light of the provisions of the Kerala Act. 4. Therefore we would proceed to consider the question before us in the light of the provisions of the Kerala Act. 4. Under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act 'agriculturist' is defined as follows in S.2 (a): "Agriculturist" means a person who has an interest, other than as a simple mortgagee in any agricultural or horticultural land, and shall include a varamdar, kudikidappukaran, coolypattamdar, sambalapattamdar, sambalachittudar, licensee and tharikuthukaran". Therefore the question before us boils down to this: Whether an insolvent-debtor after his adjudication is a person who has an interest in the agricultural or horticultural land comprised in the insolvent's estate. We may also point out that the interest that is contemplated by this definition must be one not less or worse than the interest of a varamdar, kudikidappukaran, coolipattamdar, sambalapattamdar, sambalachittudar, licensee or a tharikuthukaran In this background we would now examine the question whether a debtor, who is adjudicated insolvent, has any interest not leas or worse than the interest of the persons aforesaid and if we come to the conclusion that he has, then we have to hold that the insolvent-debtor can maintain an application under the Agriculturists Debt Relief Act. If on the other hand, we come to the conclusion that he has no such right, then our decision has to be that the insolvent-debtor cannot maintain an application under the Debt Relief Act. 5. Several decisions have been cited before us and considerable learned arguments have also been advanced. We would desist from referring to all the decisions cited before us, but would confine overselves to the more important and relevant ones. The first decision we would consider is a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court of five judges in Chalavadi Narasimham v. Chalavadi Ramayya [AIR. 1950 Madras 492] In that case the question was whether the insolvent could apply to the court under S.68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act questioning the acts of the Official Receiver and whether he could appeal under S.75 from an adverse order of the court passed on such application. In other words the question was whether an insolvent was a person aggrieved under S.68 and S.75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. In other words the question was whether an insolvent was a person aggrieved under S.68 and S.75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The Full Bench held that the insolvent was a person aggrieved and he could file the application under S.68 and the appeal under S.75 In the course of the judgment Viswanatha Sastri, J. considered the main English authorities on the question, e.g., In re Leadbitter, [1879] 10 Ch. D. 388, Ex parte Sheffield; In re Austin [1879] 10 Ch. D. 434 [40 L.T. 15] and Ex parte Sidebotham [1880] 14 Ch. D. 458; [49 Q. Bk. 41] and other English decisions and observed as follows: "There is no warrant in the decisions of the English Courts for the extreme position taken by the respondent that the insolvent has no right whatever to complain to the Court about the maladministration or misfeasance of the receiver and that he is reduced to the position of an important spectactor of the administration of his estate". Thereafter the learned judge considered several decisions of the Courts in India including the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Harirao v. Official Assignee, Madras [49 Mad. 461: AIR. 1926 Madras 556 F. B.] and observed: "The Full Bench decision in Harirao v. Official Assignee, Madras, in so far as it laid down that the insolvent could, in no circumstance, apply to the Court under S.86 Presidency Town Insolvency Act (S. 68 of Act 5 of 1920) to set aside a sale by the Official Assignee because he had no legal interest in the estate and could not, for the same reason, appeal against an adverse order under S.8 (2) of that Act (75 of the Act 5 of 1920) is, we think, erroneous and must be overruled." Therefore it is clear that the aforesaid Full Bench decision in Harirao's case, which was based on the English authorities which laid down that the insolvent had no legal interest in the estate after his adjudication, was not considered good law by the Full Bench of five judges in Chalavadi Narasimham's case. 6. Another Full Bench case of the Madras High Court cited before us is Ps. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar v. Narayanaswami Gounder (AIR. 1951 Mad. 63). 6. Another Full Bench case of the Madras High Court cited before us is Ps. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar v. Narayanaswami Gounder (AIR. 1951 Mad. 63). That was a case arising under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act and the Full Bench held that a debtor, who was an insolvent on the crucial dates, 1st October, 1937 and 22nd March 1938, but whose adjudication is subsequently annulled, has saleable interest in the property on those dates, even though his property had remained vested in the Official Receiver on those particular dates. The Full Bench further observed that a reason for that decision was that the effect of annulment of the adjudication was to relate it back to the date of the adjudication and therefore the effect was as if no adjudication had taken place, except regarding the acts of the Court and the Official Receiver which were validated by S.37. It is pointed out by the learned advocate of the petitioner before us that this Full Bench decision proceeded on the effect of the relating back of the annulment to the date of adjudication and the decision was not based on the fact that the insolvent possessed any right or interest in the property after his adjudication. Of course, in that case Balakrishna Iyer, J. laid more stress on the reverter of the property on the annulment of the adjudication and on the relating back of the annulment to the date of adjudication than on the insolvent's retaining any right in the property after his adjudication. 7. The next case, which is also a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, is Subbaiah Goundan v. Ramaswami Goundan [AIR. 1954 Mad. 604). In that case, during the pendency of a suit on a mortgage the mortgagor was adjudged insolvent, but the decree was passed without making the Official Assignee a party to the suit and thereafter the decree-holder purchased the property in execution of the decree. It was held that the decree and the proceedings were not void in the sense that they had no legal effect at all, but the proceedings were only ineffective to bind the equity of redemption, which was vested in the Official Receiver, as he was not a party to the proceedings. It was held that the decree and the proceedings were not void in the sense that they had no legal effect at all, but the proceedings were only ineffective to bind the equity of redemption, which was vested in the Official Receiver, as he was not a party to the proceedings. Satyanarayana Rao, J. observed at page 611: "Notwithstanding the insolvency of the mortgagor, the mortgagor under the law as it now exists is a necessary & proper party, as under S.91, T.P. Act, the mortgagor is a person entitled to redeem the property, and under Or. 34, R. I, Civil P. C. all persons having an interest either in the mortgage security or in the right of redemption have to be joined as parties in any suit relating to mortgage, so that even if a person has no interest in the mortgage security, if he has still the right of redemption he should be joined as a party to a mortgage action, and an insolvent mortgagor is no exception to the rule." Thus it is clear that a mortgagor, even after he is adjudged insolvent, is a person who has an interest at least in the right to redeem the mortgaged property under S.91 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore the mortgagor does not lose all his rights or interests in the mortgaged property by the mere fact of his being adjudicated insolvent. 8. We would now refer to one decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Parvathi Amma Gouri Amma v. Easo Yohannan (1955 K.L.T. 702). The learned judges in that case considered the Full Bench decisions of the Madras High Court in AIR. 1951 Mad. 63 and AIR 1954 Mad. 604 and held that proceedings started or continued without obtaining sanction of the Court would not affect the Official. Receiver or the insolvency court and that it might be right to say that those proceedings were void, as against the Official Receiver in the sense that they were voidable at his instance. But S.28 contained no warrant for the contention that the proceedings were altogether void. Receiver or the insolvency court and that it might be right to say that those proceedings were void, as against the Official Receiver in the sense that they were voidable at his instance. But S.28 contained no warrant for the contention that the proceedings were altogether void. They further held that the court sale of the property of the insolvent with the insolvent as a party but without leave of the insolvency court and without the Official Receiver on record would bind the property, should it be an item which reverted to the judgment-debtor on a subsequent unconditional annulment of the adjudication. The decision also laid down, following the observations of Subba Rao, J. in Subbaiah's Case (AIR 1954 Mad. 604), that the insolvent's property vested in the Official Receiver for the purpose of administering the estate and for meeting the claim of the creditors; that the insolvent retained his rights to the property subject to the discharge of his liabilities; that insolvency was not and did not amount to a civil death of the insolvent and that on annulment of adjudication the property of the insolvent less what might have been dealt with already by the Official Receiver would revert to the insolvent and not revest in him. This decision points out the distinction between revert and revest and thereby indicates that the insolvent retains, even after his adjudication, his right and interest in his estate. 9. Finally we would quote one passage from Mulla's treatise on the Law of Insolvency in India, 2nd Edn. at page 700. The learned author says: "The insolvent may assign the surplus or dispose of it by will to any person even before it is known whether there will be a surplus. Such an assignment is valid against the Official Assignee or Receiver in a second bankruptcy. This, however, does not entitle either the insolvent or his assignee to interfere in the administration of the estate". In support of this passage the learned author cites Ex parte Sheffield [1879] 10 Ch. D. 434, and Bird v. Philpott [1900] 1 Ch 822. This clearly shows that the right of the insolvent for the surplus remaining after the administration of his estate among his creditors is not a mere possibility or chance of getting a right to the surplus, which cannot be transferred under S.6 [a] of the Transfer of Property Act. D. 434, and Bird v. Philpott [1900] 1 Ch 822. This clearly shows that the right of the insolvent for the surplus remaining after the administration of his estate among his creditors is not a mere possibility or chance of getting a right to the surplus, which cannot be transferred under S.6 [a] of the Transfer of Property Act. In other words the insolvent's right to the surplus is a right in presenti which is transferable either inter vivos or by will. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the insolvent's right to the surplus is a mere hope or expectation to get a surplus and not a legal existing right cannot stand. In this connection our attention has been drawn to a Division Bench ruling of the Nagpur High Court in Shyam Kali Bai v. R.N. Varma (AIR. 1956 Nag. 57). The learned judges in that case following two earlier decisions of the same High Court observed without any elaborate discussion of the question: "The insolvent loses all right, title or interest in the property on the passing of the vesting order. Though the insolvent is entitled to surplus of the sale proceeds of the property that may remain after all the creditors are paid off, it is not a legal right but it is a mere hope or expectation." With all respect to the learned judges, we are not inclined to agree with this view. 10. As a result of the above discussion, we arrive at the conclusion that the insolvent retains sufficient interest in his estate after his adjudication, at any rate not less or worse than the interest of a varamdar, kudikidappukaran, sambalapattamdar, sambalachittudar, licensee or tharikuthukaran in the land in which they claim such interest. In our view the inclusion of varamdar etc. and even a licensee within the definition of 'agriculturist' indicates sufficiently the intention of the legislature to include in the term 'agriculturist' any person, who has any interest in land not worse than the interest of a varamdar, licensee etc. According to us an insolvent even after his adjudication retains such an interest in his estate and therefore he is competent to maintain an application for relief under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act. Before we conclude we would mention an argument advanced on behalf of the Official Receiver. According to us an insolvent even after his adjudication retains such an interest in his estate and therefore he is competent to maintain an application for relief under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act. Before we conclude we would mention an argument advanced on behalf of the Official Receiver. The Official Receiver's learned advocate argues that the Official Receiver is not competent to apply for relief under the Agriculturists Debt Relief Act in the absence of a provision like S.21 (2) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. He contends that the Official Receiver's powers and duties are enumerated under S.61 of the Travancore-Cochin Insolvency Act and those provisions do not confer any power on the Official Receiver to apply for relief under the Debt Relief Act. The learned counsel develops his argument further and contends that he is the representative of the creditors to administer the estate of the insolvent among them. We are not impressed by this extreme position taken by the learned counsel of the Official Receiver; we mean, his contention that he is a representative of the creditors and not the insolvent. At any rate there is no necessity for us to give a final ruling on that question in this case, for we have already held that the insolvent himself is competent to apply and since the Official Receiver is also a party to the application, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served in this case in adjudicating that question. In the result the CRP. is dismissed, in the circumstances, without costs. Dismissed.