Judgment :- 1. This is an application under Sub-section (8) of S.20 of the Kerala griculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970 for setting aside the sale of a few items of immovable properties belonging to the applicant in execution of a money decree in O. S. No. 69 of 1124 on the file of the District Court, Kottayam. The decree-holder is a banking company. The decree is dated 131952; and it was for an amount of Rs. 27,000 and odd with 9% future interest and costs. The principal amount of the debt was Rs. 27.000/-. The properties were purchased by the decree-holder on 24 91957 for a sum of Rs. 55.703-42. The judgment-debtor filed an application in the execution court to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity in the conduct of the sale resulting in substantial injury. The decree-holder filed an application in that court for appointing a receiver for the said properties. The execution petition as well as the application for setting aside the sale and the receiver application were withdrawn to this Court and that is how the matter came before me.1 he execution petition was numbered as Application No. 141 of 1970 in this Court. The application to set aside the sale and the application for appointment of receiver were numbered as Nos. 142 and 143 respectively of 1970 in this Court. Application No. 142 of 1970 has been dismissed by me on the merits on 5 31971. 2. After the above matters were withdrawn to this Court, the judgment-debtor filed the present application under S.20 (8) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970 for setting aside the sale. This Act came into force on 14 71970. The applicant claims that he is entitled to the benefit of S.20 (8) of the Act and to get the sale set aside by depositing the first instalment of the decree debt as provided in S.4 of the Act. The application states that the applicant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,381/-as the first instalment under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, and that after giving credit to that amount he is depositing another sum of Rs. 3,000/-which would be the balance necessary to make up the first instalment. It further states that the applicant is prepared to pay the deficit, if any. The application is opposed by the decree-holder on several grounds. 3,000/-which would be the balance necessary to make up the first instalment. It further states that the applicant is prepared to pay the deficit, if any. The application is opposed by the decree-holder on several grounds. The main contention advanced by the decree-holder is that S.20 (8) does not apply to the case, that the applicant has not also deposited the requisite amount within the time allowed by the said provision, and that, in any event, the application is not maintainable. 3. It is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act in order to understand the respective contentions of the parties. Debt is defined in S.2 (4) of the Act. That defininion also says that debt will not include a number of liabilities which are enumerated therein. One of them is contained in clause (1); and it reads as follows: "(1) any debt exceeding three thousand rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of this Act to any banking company: Provided that in the case of any debt exceeding three thousand rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of this Act to any banking company any agriculturists debtor shall be entitled to repay such debt in eight equal half-yearly instalments as provided in sub-section (3) of S.4, but the provisions of S.5 will not apply to such debt:" S. 4 deals with the payment of debt in instalments. Sub-section (3) of S.4 reads as follows: "The first instalment of any debt payable under sub-section (2) shall be paid before the expiry of a period of six months from the commencement of this Act, and each of the remaining instalments shall be paid on or before the expiry of a period of six months from the last day on which the previous instalment was due." S 5 deals with interest payable on debts; and admittedly that section does not apply to the case. So in the case of a debt exceeding Rs. 3,000/-due to a banking company, the first instalment that the debtor has to pay is one-eighth of the debt; and he has to pay the same before the expiry of six months from the commencement of the Act, namely before 14-1-1971. S.20 deals with setting aside of a sale of immovable property sold under different circumstances. 3,000/-due to a banking company, the first instalment that the debtor has to pay is one-eighth of the debt; and he has to pay the same before the expiry of six months from the commencement of the Act, namely before 14-1-1971. S.20 deals with setting aside of a sale of immovable property sold under different circumstances. Subsections (1) and (3) deal with setting aside of sales of immovable property sold for the recovery of a debt due to a banking company in liquidation. Subsection (2) deals with sales for recovery of arrears of rent or michavaram. Subsection (8) is a general provision relating to sale of immovable property in execution of a decree for recovery of a debt. It is this provision that the applicant invokes. Sub-section (8) reads: "In respect of any sale of immovable property which has not been confirmed, the judgment-debtor if he is an agriculturist shall be entitled to pay the decree debt in accordance with the provisions of S.4 and 5 and on the deposit of the first instalment thereof, the sale shall be set aside." According to the decree holder, the above provision applies only to a case where immovable property is sold in execution of a decree for recovery of a debt as defined in the Act, and the sale in the instant case was not for recovery of such a debt, as it falls under cause (1) of S.2 (4) of the Act. It is not disputed that the debt for the recovery of which the properties were sold is not debt as defined in the Act. But the applicant contends that the word "debt" can have the meaning as defined in the Act only unless the context otherwise requires, that, in the context in which it appears in S.20 (8., the definition does not apply, and that the said word should be given its ordinary meaning without any of the limitations contained in the definition. I am unable to accept this argument. The word "debt", which is a plain ordinary word, is defined in the Act and given a restricted meaning obviously for the purpose of confining the benefits of the Act only to such a debt. I find nothing in the context in which the said word occurs in S.20 (8) to indicate that it is used in a contrary sense. The word "debt", which is a plain ordinary word, is defined in the Act and given a restricted meaning obviously for the purpose of confining the benefits of the Act only to such a debt. I find nothing in the context in which the said word occurs in S.20 (8) to indicate that it is used in a contrary sense. The only benefit given to a debtor under the Act in respect of a debt dui to a banking company, which is not a debt as defined in the Act, seems to be the one contained in the proviso to S.2 (4) (I). It provides far discharge of such a debt by payment in eight half-yearly instalments without the benefit available under S.5 regarding payment of interest. A debtor is not entitled to have larger benefits than those expressly granted by the Act. 4. S.2 (c) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 defines the word debt in a more or less similar manner. Item (xi) in S.2 (c) is debt due to a banking company. The provision contained in that clause and in clause (I) of S.2 (4) of the present Act are identically similar, except that the limit fixed in the earlier Act is Rs. 1,500/- while it is Rs. 3, 000/- in the present Act. S.22 (3) of the 1958 Act corresponds to S.20 (8) of the present Act. In Gopalakrishnan Nair v. Subhadra Amma (1961 KLT. 930), the question arose whether S.22 (3) applies to the case of sale of immovable property sold in execution of decree for the recovery of a debt, which was not a debt as defined in the Act. The same argument as has been advanced before me was advanced in that case also. The learned judge rejected the argument and held that the word "debt" appearing in S.22 of that Act means only a debt as defined in the said Act. The debt concerned in that case was a debt due to a widow which is excluded from the definition of debt in the 1958 Act. The debt in the instant case is a debt exceeding Rs. 3,000/- due to a banking company, which is also excluded from the definition of debt in the present Act. So the above decision fully applies to this case; and I respectfully agree with it. 5. The debt in the instant case is a debt exceeding Rs. 3,000/- due to a banking company, which is also excluded from the definition of debt in the present Act. So the above decision fully applies to this case; and I respectfully agree with it. 5. A Full Bench decision of this Court in Catholic Bank of India Ltd. v. Jacob (1967 KLT. 416) observed that a person who owes a debt to a banking company exceeding Rs. 1,500/- which is excluded from the definition of debt in the 1958 Act is entitled under the Act only to the benefit granted by the proviso to clause (xi) in S.2 (e) of that Act. No doubt the question did not directly arise for decision in the above case; but the observation is valuable; and with great respect I agree with the same. 6. The decree-holder is entitled to succeed on the second ground also. According to the counter-affidavit filed by the decree-holder, the debt due from the applicant on the relevant date exceeds Rs. 84,000/-; and one-eighth of that amount is above Rs. 10, 500/-. The applicant has to deposit that amount on or before 14 11971. In the present case, the application for setting aside the sale was filed on 14 11971. It states that a sum of Rs. 3,000/ which would be sufficient to make up the first instalment of the debt is being deposited. The applicant has not produced any evidence to show that the said amount has been deposited. Counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was deposited by the applicant with the Official Liquidator on 1511971 which he has received under protest. This amount is obviously far below the one-eighth of the decree debt. The deposit has not also been made within the time allowed by S.20 (8). The amount to be deposited and the period within which it has to be done are both fixed in the Statute; and I do not find any provision in the Act empowering the court to vary these matters. If there is any discretion vested in court in this respect, this is a case in which it should not be exercised in favour of the applicant on any ground. 7. The decree-holder has a case that the Act is not applicable to banking companies. If there is any discretion vested in court in this respect, this is a case in which it should not be exercised in favour of the applicant on any ground. 7. The decree-holder has a case that the Act is not applicable to banking companies. This is a general question, which I do not propose to decide in this case, since it can be disposed of, in the light of the veiw I have taken on the applicability of S.20 (8) of the Act. 8. In the result, this application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.