ORDER T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition raises a short question of interest under Act XXXI of 1958. The petitioner applied to the primary court under section 15 of the Act for a full settlement of all his debts. Both the primary court, as well as the appellate court in appeal, dismissed the application holding that the petitioner was not an agriculturist as defined in the Act at the commencement of the Act. According to the lower courts only an agriculturist at the commencement of the Act was competent to apply for relief under section 15. This decision is being challenged in revision. 2. Section 2 (a) defines ' agriculturist' as a person who has an interest in any agricultural or horticultural land in the State of Kerala. This definition does not indicate that such interest in agricultural or horticultural land should be at the commencement of the Act. 'Debt' is defined under section 2 (c) as any liability in cash or kind due from or incurred by an agriculturist on or before the commencement of the Act. So that, any debt to come within this definition should be subsisting at the commencement of the Act; and an agriculturist can get relief under the provisions of the Act only regarding such debts as would come within the definition of that term. But in section 15 the term 'debt' is not used in that restricted sense, I mean, as the term is defined in the Act. The term 'debt' is used in section 15 in its ordinary and natural meaning to take within its ambit all the debts of an agriculturist [vide Umbichi Ahmadu v. Kalyaniyamma 1960 K.L.T. 865]. Therefore, it is clear that when an agriculturist is claiming relief under section 15, his relief is not restricted to such debts as would come within the definition of that term, but would comprise all his debts, including probably debts subsequent to the Act. 3. What has happened in this case is that though the debts were in existence at the commencement of the Act, the debtor had no interest in any agricultural or horticultural land within the State of Kerala at the commencement of the Act; and he later on purchased some agricultural land, so that at the time of his application under section 15 he became an agriculturist. The question is whether such a person is entitled to relief under section 15. Whatever might be the position in regard to his relief under the other provisions of the Act, when he claims relief under section15, I do not think it could be denied. The definition of' agriculturist' does not warrant the construction that the agriculturist nature should be in existence at the commencement of the Act. If that were the intention of the legislature, the legislature would have included appropriate words in the definition. Therefore, I do not think courts would be justified in restricting the definition of the term ' agriculturist' to mean agriculturist at the commencement of the Act. 4. The argument on behalf of the respondents is that section 15 (1) provides relief only to an agriculturist who is unable to pay his debts under the earlier provisions in the Act, so that he can get relief under section 15 only if he can claim relief under the other provisions of the Act and he is unable to pay his debts even as contemplated by those other provisions., This contention appears to have some force; and the question does not appear to be free from difficulties. But in view of the definition of agriculturist and in view of the use of the term ' debt ' in its wider connotation in section 15, I do not think this contention can be accepted. Probably the legislature might have intended to give relief to an agriculturist whose debts are all excepted debts, if he is unable to pay them even if the other provisions of the Act were applicable to such debts. That, according to me, is the implication of the use of ' debt' in its wider connotation in section 15. In this view, the decision of the lower courts cannot be sustained; and I hold that the petitioner is entitled to maintain the application as an agriculturist. The order is therefore set aside and the petition is remanded to the primary court i and that court is directed to proceed with the application under section 15 considering the other aspects and the merits of the application. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their respective costs throughout.