Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition by the defendant-judgment-debtor in O.S. 171/1950 is concerned with the interpretation of S.20 (1) (b) of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, Act 11 of 1970 (briefly the Act). 2. I may straightway read the relevant portion of the provision; "(1) Where any immovable property in which an agriculturist had an interest has been sold in execution of any decree for recovery of a debt or sold under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force for the recovery of a debt due to a banking company in liquidation (a) on or after the 1st day of November, 1956; or (b) before the 1st day of November, 1956, but the possession of the said property has not actually passed before the 20th day of November, 1957, from the judgment-debtor to the purchaser." The facts on the strength of which the provision is invoked may be briefly stated. The respondent herein filed O.S. 171/1950 against the revision petitioner, obtained a decree and attached and sold in execution an undivided 3/8 share which the defendant had in an item of immovable property. The sale was confirmed on 27-3-1957. That was followed by a symbolic delivery, which alone was possible in that context, on 29-5-1957. Having thus obtained the rights of the judgment-debtor over the property sold, the plaintiff in O. S.171/1950 filed another suit as O. S.138/1958 for partition and consequential reliefs against the other co-owners. That too resulted in a decree. In execution of that decree the plaintiff obtained delivery of his share through court on 20121962. When Act 11 of 1970 came into force the judgment-debtor in O. S.171/1950 felt that he got a cause of action to set aside the sale conducted in that case on 27-3-1957 by virtue of S.20 (1) (b) of the Act extracted above, and laid the petition which gave rise to this revision. The courts below took the view that in as much as the symbolic delivery took place prior to the 20th day of November, 1957, the day specified in S.20 (1) (b) of the Act, the petition is incompetent; and it was dismissed. 3. The courts below took the view that in as much as the symbolic delivery took place prior to the 20th day of November, 1957, the day specified in S.20 (1) (b) of the Act, the petition is incompetent; and it was dismissed. 3. According to the revision petitioner since the respondent obtained physical possession of the property only on 20121962 in pursuance of the execution of the decree in O.S. 138/1958 he is entitled to get the sale in O.S. 171/1950 vacated because the expression used in S.20 (1) (b) is "but the possession of the said property has not actually passed before the 20th day of November, 1957". I think, the argument cannot succeed because the expression on which emphasis is laid cannot be dissociated from the other words in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S.20 as also certain expressions contained in the opening part of sub-section (1). To apply S.20 (1) (b) the transfer of possession must be, "from the judgment-debtor to the purchaser". The delivery of possession on 20121962 effected in execution of the decree in O.S. 138/1958 is not a delivery of property from the revision petitioner judgment-debtor in O.S. 171/1950 to the decree holder therein. Then again, as referred to above, one cannot ignore the main purpose of sub-section (1) of S.20. The provision is intended to help an agriculturist whose interest in a property has been sold, as is clear from the expression "where any immovable property in which an agriculturist had an interest has been sold in execution of any decree for recovery of a debt ". The emphasis, as is clear from the provision, is on the interest which the agriculturist had in the property and not the property as such. If what could be and what is sold is the "interest" which an agriculturist may have in an immovable property, what could be affected by avoidance of the sale under S.20(1) (b) is such interest and not any and every right over that immovable property. In the instant case it is clear that the interest which the revision petitioner agriculturist had in the property attached and sold in execution of the decree in O.S. 171/1950 was an undivided Oodukoor right to the extent of a 3/8 share. The agriculturist had no exclusive possession of any definite portion of the property. In the instant case it is clear that the interest which the revision petitioner agriculturist had in the property attached and sold in execution of the decree in O.S. 171/1950 was an undivided Oodukoor right to the extent of a 3/8 share. The agriculturist had no exclusive possession of any definite portion of the property. In the case of sale of such an interest what is possible in law is only a symbolic delivery. The subsequent suit for partition in O.S. 138/1958 against the other co-owners had nothing to do with any interest which the revision petitioner had in that property because such right was already lost by the court-sale in O.S. 171/1950. 4. I cannot also find much substance in the contention that a symbolic delivery is wholly outside the purview of S.20 (1) of the Act. In view of the decision in Chacko v. John (1960 KLT 485) I do not think that I need pursue the matter further because the ratio therein though laid down under S.22 of Act 31 of 1958, is fully applicable to a case arising under S.20 (1) (b) of the Act. The courts below were right in dismissing the petition; and I find no reason to interfere. The revision is dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.