Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition arises from proceedings under S.15 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 31 of 1958. One Anthony was adjudicated insolvent on 25-6-1954. He died on 3-12-1954 and the adjudication was annulled on 4-1-1955 with a direction that his properties were to vest in the Official Receiver. On 21-11-1958 the petitioners who are the legal representatives of Anthony applied for relief under S.15 of Act 31 of 1958 which enables an agriculturist who is unable to pay his debts to get one-fourth of his assets not exceeding Rs. 4,000/-in value, free of debts. Some of the creditors of Anthony who were respondents to the application filed objections contending inter alia that an insolvent whose assets vested in the Receiver cannot be treated as an agriculturist and the legal representatives of an agriculturist are not entitled to apply for relief under S.15 in respect of the debts of the agriculturist. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld these objections and dismissed the petition. The petitioners have therefore preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 2. When this petition came up before our learned brother, Madhavan Nair, J., he referred it to a Division Bench for decision as it was felt that the decision in Damodaran Pillai v. Kanta Kochukunju (1961 KLT. 368) and the decisions of the High Court of Madras relied on in that judgment required further consideration. It was also observed in the order of reference that the decision reported in 1961 KLT. 368 in which the point for decision was whether an insolvent whose properties vested in the Official Receiver could apply for relief under S.15 of the Act could be distinguished on the facts of this case. The two points which arise for decision are: (i) whether an insolvent whose properties vest in the Receiver can apply for relief under S.15 of Act 31 of 1958 and (ii) whether an application by the legal representatives of an agriculturist-debtor for such relief is maintainable? 3. We are of opinion that the first point need not be decided in this as the case can be decided on the second point. We may however observe that in addition to the difference in the definition of 'agriculturist' in the Madras and Kerala Acts, there is specific provision in S.21 of the Madras Act (IV of 1938) which enables an insolvent to seek such relief in certain cases. We may however observe that in addition to the difference in the definition of 'agriculturist' in the Madras and Kerala Acts, there is specific provision in S.21 of the Madras Act (IV of 1938) which enables an insolvent to seek such relief in certain cases. Apart from this, an agriculturist who applies for relief under S.15 has to make a statement that he unconditionally leaves all his assets to the control of the Court. We do not see how a person whose assets are no longer with him can do so. However we may observe that the decision in 1961 KLT. 368 is of a Bench and that if another Bench feels doubt about its correctness, the proper course would be to refer the case to a Full Bench. Such a course is not necessary in this case as the case can be decided on the second point. 4. The second point is whether the remedy under S.15 is available to legal representatives of a deceased agriculturist debtor. The section reads: '15. (1) Any agriculturist who is unable to pay his debts under the foregoing provisions of this Act, may present an application to the court within whose jurisdiction he resides or ordinarily carries on business for a full settlement of his debts. (2) Every such application shall be in writing and shall be signed by the applicant and verified in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for signing and verifying plaints. (3) Every such application shall contain the following particulars, namely: (a) the place where the applicant resides and the place or places where he holds any property, movable or immovable; (b) the amount and other particulars of all claims against him at the commencement of this Act, together with the name, address and residence of his creditors; (c) the amount and other particulars of all his property including claims due to him together with a specification of the value of such property and the place or places at which any such property is to be found and details of any mortgage, lien or charges thereon; (d) a statement that he wants a fair settlement of his debts; (e) a statement that he unconditionally leaves all his assets in the control of the court and (f) other particulars if so prescribed by rules. (4) The court for purposes of this section shall be the court of a Munsiff if the total of the debt does not exceed Rs. 5,000 and in all other cases the court of a Subordinate Judge." Clause (1) provides that any agriculturist who is unable to pay his debts may apply. The case of the petitioners is that their deceased father was unable to pay his debts and not that they are unable to pay their or their father's debts. The debts are not their debts and they have no obligation to pay the same. If the debts of a deceased person are not paid, the creditors can proceed only against the assets of the deceased and the legal representatives are not personally liable for the same. Under S.18, one-fourth of the entire assets not exceeding Rs. 4,000 -in value is allotted to the debtor free of liabilities other than those specified in the section. If the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to this relief, they should get this one-fourth irrespective of whether they are agriculturists or not. Again, the legal representatives may be persons who are able to pay their debts or even their predecessor's debts, nevertheless they will get one-fourth of the assets of their predecessor-in-interest free of liability. It would lead to manifestly absurd results if the question is answered in the affirmative. 5. S.16 of the Travancore Debt Relief Act contained a provision similar to S.15 of Act 31 of 1958. The words used in the Travancore Act were "an individual unable to pay his debts." A Full Bench of the Travancore High Court held in Chidambara Iyer Azhagappa Iyer v. Nallathayammal Sivakami Ammal (1947 TLR.1) that the relief was personal to the debtor & was not available to his legal representatives. This view was affirmed by the Travancore-Cochin High Court in S. K. Ramaswami v. P. Subbayyan Lala (1953 KLT. 98). That the word in S.15 is not'individual' does not in our opinion make any difference in the conclusion. We therefore uphold the view of the learned Subordinate Judge that the petitioners are not entitled to apply for relief under S.15 in respect of their father's liabilities. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs. Dismissed.