Judgment :- 1. The main question for consideration in this case is whether a provision in a mortgage document executed in 1954 that the mortgagor will not claim any benefit under any Debt Relief Act passed thereafter is enforceable or not. After the coming into force of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act of 1958 the mortgagor claimed relief under the appropriate provisions of the Act, when the mortgagee sought to rely on the above-mentioned provision in the mortgage document and the lower court has rejected the plea. 2. Mr. K. C. John, on behalf of the mortgagee, draws my attention to three decisions: (1) Mathevan Pillai Kolappa Pillai v. Uthamarayan Savarimuthu Bhasian 1943 TLR. 409, (2) Narayana Reddiar v. M. N. Pattar 1950 KLT. 295 and Mohamed v. Gheevarghese 1961 KLT. 542. In the first of these cases a Division Bench of the Travancore High Court has held that the Travancore Debt Relief Act was not based on any public policy or morality and therefore the debtor might, if he so chose, barter away his rights and if he did that, he was alone to be blamed and no other. The Division Bench observed: "The right is intended not so such for his protection as for his benefit...." 3. This decision has been followed by a Division Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in the second case. In the third case referred to above Velu Pillai, J., has followed the decision in the first case and has observed: "On this point, I feel no difficulty in maintaining the view of the learned District Judge. It was not disputed before me, that a party may contract out of the provisions of that Act, and may give up or renounce benefits which the Act is intended to confer on him." 4. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions and the passages quoted Mr. John contends that since the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act was intended to benefit only particular individuals, they might contract out of the provisions of the Act. 5. Mr. Kulathil Velayudhan Nair, the learned advocate of the respondent-mortgagor, invites my attention to S.4 (1) of the Act. It reads: "Subject to the provisions of sub-S. (5), notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract or in any decree or order of court, any debt may be discharged in the manner specified in sub-Ss. 5. Mr. Kulathil Velayudhan Nair, the learned advocate of the respondent-mortgagor, invites my attention to S.4 (1) of the Act. It reads: "Subject to the provisions of sub-S. (5), notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract or in any decree or order of court, any debt may be discharged in the manner specified in sub-Ss. (2) and (3)." The learned counsel argues that in view of the wording of this sub-section it is not correct to say that the provision is not intended for the protection of the agriculturist debtor and it does not involve any public policy and that the agriculturist debtor is bound by a contract not to claim benefits under the Act. He also invites my attention to the Full Bench decision in Korah Punnen v. Parameswara Kurup Vasudeva Kurup 1955 KLT. 924, wherein it has been held that the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Order involved public policy and landlords and tenants should not be allowed to defeat the object of the enactment by agreeing to contract out of it. This Full Bench has considered the two decisions already referred to, of the Travancore High Court and of the Travancore-Cochin High Court, and has held that those cases did not apply to the Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Order. 6. In all the three cases relied on by Mr. John the parties came to some compromise or the debtor failed to claim benefits under the Relief Act after the Act came into force. Subsequent to such compromise or waiver the debtor sought to reagitate his claim for relief and that was disallowed by the court. In the last of the three cases Velu Pillai, J., though he has approvingly quoted the decision of the Travancore High Court, has granted relief under the amendment to the Act observing that what were given up were only the benefits under the Act as it originally stood and the debtor was entitled to claim the benefits subsequently conferred on him by the amendment. Speaking for myself, I do not accept the contention that the Kerala Debt Relief Act does not involve any public policy and is not intended to protect the agriculturist debtor but is intended only for his benefit especially in view of the wording of S.4 (1) of the Act and similar other provisions in other sections. Speaking for myself, I do not accept the contention that the Kerala Debt Relief Act does not involve any public policy and is not intended to protect the agriculturist debtor but is intended only for his benefit especially in view of the wording of S.4 (1) of the Act and similar other provisions in other sections. At the same time, the observation in the Travancore decision and the observation of Velu Pillai, J., may be applicable to the facts of those cases. It is apparent that Velu Pillai, J., has not applied the proposition as a general one even to the case before him, for my learned brother has held that the benefits conferred on the debtor by the amendment could be claimed by him, even if he renounced the benefits conferred on him by the Act as it stood at the time of its renunciation. If so, a provision like the one which I am dealing with in this case in a document executed in 1954, to the effect that the debtor will hot claim any benefit that may be conferred on him by any Debt Relief Act that may be passed in the future certainly offends public policy and is intended to defeat the provisions of all the future Debt Relief Acts. I may also remind that even the wording of S.4 (1) of the Act will not justify this claim of the petitioner. 7. Another contention is sought to be raised by Mr. John to the effect that the petition for relief and the deposit contemplated under the Act were not made within six months of the commencement of the Act. This question does not appear to have been raised or argued before the lower court and I do not think it is proper or just to allow it to be raised in revision before this Court. 8. The result is the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.