Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder who sought to take out execution of the decree. The 1st respondent objected on 5-8-1959 and contended that the debt for which the decree was obtained is a debt coming within the purview of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 and that therefore the decree should be amended in accordance with the provisions in S.7 of the Act. According to the appellant, the 1st respondent was not an agriculturist on the crucial date, 5-8-1959, when he objected to the execution of the decree and demanded amendment of the decree by scaling down the amount provided by the decree. The above Act contemplates that a person who claims the benefit of the Act must be an agriculturist on the date on which the Act came into force. The only two relevant provisions of the statute are the definitions of 'Agriculturist' in S.2 (a) and S.7 of the above Act which reads as follows: "2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) 'Agriculturist' means a person who has an interest other than as a simple mortgagee, in any agricultural or horticultural land in the State of Kerala and shall include a varamdar, Kudikidappukaran, coolipattamdar sambalapattamdar, sambalachittudar, licensee and tharikuthukaran, but shall not include:-" 7. (1) Where before the commencement of this Act, a Court has passed a decree for repayment of a debt, it shall, on the application of any judgment-debtor who is an agriculturist or on the application of the decree-holder apply the provisions of this Act to such decree and' shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, amend the decree accordingly or enter satisfaction as the case may be. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall also apply to cases where, after the commencement of this Act, a court has passed a decree for the repayment of any debt." 2. We may also refer to the definition of the term'debt' contained in S.2(c) of the Act and it is possible that a debt incurred by an agriculturist before the commencement of the Act will be a debt within the meaning of the definition of the term'debt' contained in the statute. We may also refer to the definition of the term'debt' contained in S.2(c) of the Act and it is possible that a debt incurred by an agriculturist before the commencement of the Act will be a debt within the meaning of the definition of the term'debt' contained in the statute. If the ordinary literal meaning is given to S.7 there can be no doubt that the judgment-debtor who claims the benefit of the Act must be an 'agriculturist' on the date on which he claims the benefit conferred by the Act. The words used are: "it shall, on the application of any judgment-debtor who is an agriculturist." This necessarily means that at the time of making the application, the judgment-debtor must be an agriculturist. We think that this would be so even if we incorporate the definition of the term 'Agriculturist' in S.2(a) in S.7. So incorporated the relevant part of S.7(1) will read thus: "on the application of any judgment-debtor who has an interest in any agricultural or horticultural land." 3. This means that on the date of the application the judgment-debtor should have an interest in agricultural or horticultural property. Admittedly the 1st respondent did not have such an interest for he had sold away his agricultural property before he objected to execution on 6-8-1959. This fact is admitted. 4. The 1st respondent had three other items of properties. It was assumed by the court below that these were not agricultural lands. This assumption was made without any investigation into the question. Two of these properties will admittedly not fall under the category of agricultural lands. The third item has been sold after the court below disposed of the appeal and it is said that it is not possible to ascertain the nature of that land now, material alteration having been made in the property. 5. In the light of the above, no further question arises for determination. We reverse the decision of the court below that the 1st respondent is entitled to the benefits of S.7 of Act 31 of 1958 and allow this appeal. We make no order as to costs in this case either in the court below or here. Allowed.