Judgment :- 1. The question for decision is whether the application filed by the judgment-debtor under S.22 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act. for cancellation of the court sale of his property falls under S.22 [1] [a] or [b]. 2. Clause [a] of S.22 [1] relates to a case where the auction-purchaser is a decree-holder. In a case under clause [a] the judgment-debtor has to deposit one-half of the purchase money together with the costs of execution where such costs are not included in the purchase money. The application may be made within one year and the balance of the purchase money is to be paid in ten equal half-yearly instalments. Clause [b] applies to a case where the auction purchaser is not the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor has to apply within six months and deposit the purchase money in full. 3. The auction-purchaser in this case is an assignee decree-holder. It was contended by him that, not being the decree-holder, clause [b] of S.22 (1] applied to the case and that the application had to be dismissed as the full purchase money was not deposited. This contention was upheld by the courts below. The judgment-debtor has therefore preferred this civil revision petition. 4. The two categories contemplated by S.22 (1) are: [i] where the auction purchaser is the decree-holder and (ii] where the auction-purchaser is not the decree holder. The word 'decree-holder' has not been defined in the Act. The courts below adopted a narrow construction of the word 'decree-holder' and held that an assignee-decree-holder cannot be treated as 'decree-holder' for the purpose of this section. 5. I am uable to uphold the concurrent orders. The definition of 'decree-holder' in the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 included a transferee of the decree also, but as pointed out by the High Court of Bombay in Shankar Hari v. Damodar Vyankaji [AIR. 1945 Bom. 380] "the omission is made good by the newly added S.146 whereby the transferee of a decree being a person claiming under the decree-holder steps into his shoes and for all purposes he may be regarded as a decree-holder himself". Even if the definition in the Code of Civil Procedure is to be followed, I am of opinion that the word 'decree-holder' in S.22 [1] [a] includes a transferee of the decree. Order XXI R.16 of the Code provides: "16. Even if the definition in the Code of Civil Procedure is to be followed, I am of opinion that the word 'decree-holder' in S.22 [1] [a] includes a transferee of the decree. Order XXI R.16 of the Code provides: "16. where a decree or, if a decree has been passed jointly in favour of two or more persons, the interest of any decree holder in the decree is transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree to the court which passed it; and the decree may be executed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by such decree-holder" (Provisos are omitted) Thus the transferee of the decree gets all the rights of the decree-holder to execute the decree. The distinction intended by clauses [a] and (b) is one between the decree-holder or the assignee-decree-holder auction purchaser and a stranger auction purchaser. The decision in Achamma George v. Krishna Warrier (1959 KLT. 907) where it was held that it was not open for one who was not the judgment-debtor to apply under S.22 on the ground that the judgment-debtor was his benamidar is not applicable to this case. The narrow construction contended for by the assignee-decree-holder would even result in manifest absurdity. 6. The decisions relied on by the lower appellate court also do not apply to the facts of this case. 7. It follows that the concurrent orders must be set aside. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed and I. A. No. 198 of 1959 is remanded to the court of first instance for decision on the merits. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. Allowed.