JUDGMENT G. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether a debtor whose only debt is one exempted from the definition of 'debt' in S.2(4) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1970, is entitled to apply for a settlement of such a debt under S.15 and 16 of the said Act. The lower court was of the view that he is not entitled and consequently dismissed his application and this appeal is against that order of dismissal. 2. The 1st respondent is a banking company and the debt due to that company from the appellants exceeds Rs. 3,000 under a single transaction. Hence it is a debt exempted from the definition of the word 'debt in sub-s.(4), S.2 of the Act [See clause (1) of sub-s.(4) of S.2 of the Act]. That means the debt cannot be recalculated as provided in S.4 and 5 of the Act for discharge. S.15 sub-s.(1) provides that 'any agriculturist who is unable to pay the debts payable by him' may apply 'for a full settlement of such debts'. The contention of the appellant is that this sub-section enables the debtor who is unable to pay his debts including debts which are not included in the expression 'debt' in the Act, to apply and according to counsel the expression 'debt' used in sub-s.(1) of S.15 comprehends all debts, whether exempted or not under any clause of sub-s.(4) of S.2 of the Act. 3. This section corresponds to S.15 of Act 31 of 1958 with some modifications. Under the earlier Act an agriculturist who is unable to pay the debts "under the foregoing provisions of this Act" may apply for a full settlement of his debts. "The foregoing provisions of this Act" are S.4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the said Act where payment and method of recalculation are stated. On the language of S.15(1) of the earlier Act in a Full Bench decision of this court it was held that the right to apply under S.15 can be availed of only if there is at least one debt satisfying the definition of the word 'debt' as defined in the Act which the debtor was unable to discharge under the earlier provisions of the Act. (see Balakrishnan v. Asoka Bank Ltd. ( 1965 KLT 1059 FB). (see Balakrishnan v. Asoka Bank Ltd. ( 1965 KLT 1059 FB). At page 1062 it was observed thus: "While S.15(1) of the Act prescribes the condition precedent to be satisfied before any agriculturist makes an application for a full settlement of his debts, S.18 prescribes the scope and ambit of such settlement. S.15(1) is therefore confined to an agriculturist who is unable to pay under the foregoing provisions of the Act. Payment under such foregoing provisions can be made only in respect of debts defined under S.2(c) of the Act. Necessarily it follows that the inability to pay contemplated by clause (1) of S.15 is also in respect of such debts and the existence of any such debt or debts is essential for the maintainability of a petition under S.15(1). To take advantage of it the agriculturist must show that he has a debt which he is unable to pay under the foregoing provisions of the Act. It therefore follows that 'debts' in the clause "who is unable to pay his debts under the foregoing provisions of the Act" in S.15(1) can only mean 'debt' defined in S.2(c) of the Act." In the same decision it was also observed that in the settlement of his debts all his liabilities, whether amounting to a debt or not as defined in the Act, will be taken into account and settled. The contention of the appellants' counsel is that under the present Act there is a change in the wording of S.15. The expression "under the foregoing provisions of this Act" have been substituted by the expression "payable by him" and for the last two words "his debts" in the sub-section, the words "such debts" have been substituted in S.15(1) of the present Act thereby making the provision applicable to all debts, whether or not such debts satisfy the definition of 'debt' in S.2(4) of the Act. It is necessary to notice the changes effected in S.15 to see whether this contention of the appellants is correct. As stated earlier, in sub-s.(1) of S.15 the words "who is unable to pay his debts under the foregoing provisions of this Act'' mentioned in the earlier Act are substituted by the words "unable to pay the debts payable by him''. As stated earlier, in sub-s.(1) of S.15 the words "who is unable to pay his debts under the foregoing provisions of this Act'' mentioned in the earlier Act are substituted by the words "unable to pay the debts payable by him''. Towards the close of that Section for the words "full settlement of the debts mentioned in the earlier Act" the expression "for a full settlement of such debts" has been substituted in the present Act. In sub-s.2(b) the words "at the commencement of this Act together with the name, address and residence of his creditors" have been omitted and the words "on the date of the application" have been substituted. There is no other material change in sub-s.1 to 3 of S.15 of the Act. These changes, according to us, have not materially enlarged the scope of the new S.15. That debts other than those defined in the Act are not intended to be taken in will be clear from a perusal of the earlier provisions of the Act. S.2(4) enumerates the debts which are exempted from the purview of the general definition of the word "debt". The method of payment of the debts is prescribed in S.4. The limit and rate of interest on the debts payable under S.4 are provided in S.5. S.6 provides for a recalculation of the debt and appropriation of the payment of the instalments. S.7 relates to the power of the court to decide doubts and disputes regarding the amount payable under S.4. The scheme thus provided for in these sections enables the debtor to make a recalculation of the debt and to pay a lesser amount and that in instalments and get a discharge of his liability to the creditor. When this is the scheme the expression "the debts payable by him" means the debts repayable in the manner stated above. The scheme thus provided for in these sections enables the debtor to make a recalculation of the debt and to pay a lesser amount and that in instalments and get a discharge of his liability to the creditor. When this is the scheme the expression "the debts payable by him" means the debts repayable in the manner stated above. The use of the definite article "the" in the above expression and the use of the words "such debts" at the close of the sub-section conveys the same idea originally conveyed by the expression "his debts under the foregoing provisions of the Act." If the intention of the Legislature was to confer a right to a debtor to apply irrespective of the nature of the debt, whether coming under the purview of the Act or not, it would have been enough for the Legislature to use only the words "unable to pay his debts". But the Legislature was careful enough to use the words "the debts payable by him" in the place of "his debts under the foregoing provisions of the Act" to convey the same meaning as was given to the latter expression as interpreted by the Full Bench decision referred to above. The use of the words "payable by him" after the words "the debts" and the use of the words "such debts" in the last portion of the sub-section shows that the Legislature did not intend to enlarge the right of a debtor to apply for discharge under S.15 any debt even if such a debt is not one coming under the scheme of scaling down provided for under the earlier provisions of the Act. The principle laid down in the Full Bench decision that to enable the debtor to apply there must be at least be one debt payable by him under the Act equally applies to the new Act also. This is the condition precedent to be satisfied by him to apply. But if he has got that right the scheme of discharge provided for in S.15 and 16 is not limited to the discharge of only such debts. Under the above scheme all the liabilities of the debtor on the date of his application are directed to be settled and the debtor is given one fourth of the entire assets not exceeding Rs. Under the above scheme all the liabilities of the debtor on the date of his application are directed to be settled and the debtor is given one fourth of the entire assets not exceeding Rs. 6,000 free of all liabilities except the liability to pay public revenue due on the land given to him or any tax or fee thereon. This is clear from the provisions in S.15(3)(b), namely that the debtor should furnish the amount or other particulars of all claims against him at the date of the application and also the expression in S.16(1) that the court shall "settle the liabilities of the debtor in the manner mentioned thereunder". (It ought to be 'hereunder'). The suggestions of the court made in the Full Bench decision that all liabilities till the date of the application should be allowed to be settled is seen accepted by the Legislature in passing the new Act, for sub-s.3(b) of the Act requires the debtor to furnish the particulars of all the claims against the debtor as 'on the date of the application'. Even the debts subsequent to the commencement of the Act will thus come under this provision if the condition precedent mentioned earlier is satisfied by the debtor. Thus, it is seen that the interpretation given by the Full Bench decision to the scheme of the settlement provided for under the earlier Act is substantially maintained in the scheme provided in S.15 and 16 of the new Act. That means, in order to get a right to apply there must be one debt at least payable under the earlier provisions of the Act. If that is not there, the debtor has no right to apply. 4. In this case the only debt included in the application is a debt due to the respondent bank and it is a debt exceeding Rs. 3,000 borrowed under a single transaction exempted under the definition of the word "debt". Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to apply for settlement of the debt under S.15 of the new Act. The lower court is therefore right in dismissing the application. 5. In the light of this conclusion it is not necessary for us to go into the point urged by the respondents' counsel that the debt was not subsisting on the date of the application. The lower court is therefore right in dismissing the application. 5. In the light of this conclusion it is not necessary for us to go into the point urged by the respondents' counsel that the debt was not subsisting on the date of the application. His contention was that the debt has been discharged by the court sale long before the coming into force of the Act, though the sale remained to be confirmed on that date. 6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs.