Order. — The first defendant in O.S. No. 299 of 1958 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Pudukottai is the appellant. One Venu Ammal had executed a mortgage on 2nd September, 1945 in favour of one Krishnamurthi, whose legal representative, is the first respondent. After the death of Venu Ammal the first respondent filed a suit on the said mortgage against the daughters of the said Venu Ammal, for recovery of the mortgage amount. Defendants 1 and 2, the daughters of the mortgagor, remained ex parte and a final decree in the suit was passed on 6th January, 1972 for a sum of Rs. 1,947. After the passing of the said final decree, the first defendant, one of the daughters not have been scaled down if he were alive and had applied for relief, the legal representatives who merely represent his estate and were liable to pay the debts out of the assets in their hands were in no better position and could claim no relief under the Act, even though they may be agriculturists. This contention of the decree-holder found favour with the Courts below. But when the matter was taken to this Court the Division Bench expressed that the avowed purpose of the Act being to enable agriculturists to retain their property and prevent such property passing into the hands of creditors or execution purchasers, it would largely defeat such purpose, if the benefit of the Act were to be denied to the large class of persons who come under liability by devolution and who are themselves agriculturists as defined by the Act, and therefore the legal representatives were entitled to claim relief under the Act as agriculturists, although the original debtor whose liability they have inherited was himself not an agriculturist. This decision directly deals with a case of a legal representative of the original debtor and the facts in that case are on all fours with the facts of the case on hand. This decision directly deals with a case of a legal representative of the original debtor and the facts in that case are on all fours with the facts of the case on hand. In the said decision the learned Judges have referred to with approval an earlier Bench decision of this Court, Perianna v. Sellappa1 , wherein it has been held that the right to claim relief under the Tamil Nadu Act (IV of 1938) was not confined to the person who actually contracted the debt but who available equally to persons who were liable on account of the possession of property and that accordingly the liability of a purchaser of the equity of redemption in a portion of the mortgaged property was a debt liable to be scaled down under the provisions of the Act. This decision in Perianna v. Sellappa1, was approved by the Supreme Court in Nageswaraswami v. Viswasundara Rao2. In that case the question before the Supreme Court was whether the purchaser of an equity of redemption could claim the privileges under the Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1938. The Supreme Court expressed the view at page 256 as follows: “The right to claim relief as is well settled by decisions of the Madras High Court (vide Perianna v. Sellappa1is not confined to the person who originally contracted the debt, but is available to his legal representatives and assigns as well; nor is it necessary that the applicant should be personally liable for the debt. The liability of a purchaser of the equity of redemption to pay the mortgage debt undoubtedly arises on the date of his purchase; but the debt itself which has its origin in the mortgage bond did exist from before his purchase, and if it was payable by an agriculturist at the relevant date, the purchaser could certainly claim the privileges of the Act if he himself was an agriculturist at the date of his application.” It can therefore be taken to be well established that the benefit conferred by the Act will be available not only to the original debtor but also to his legal representatives and assigns and that it is not necessary that the legal representatives and assigns should be personally liable for the debt. 6. In Palani Goundan v. Peria Goundan3, Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri, JJ. 6. In Palani Goundan v. Peria Goundan3, Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri, JJ. had earlier dealt with a case of a purchaser of equity of redemption at a salt in execution of a money decree agains the mortgagors, claiming to have the mortgage decree amended under section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1938. It was contended that the application under section 19 for scaling down the mortgage decree is not maintainable as the purchaser of equity of redemption will not come under the definition of a judgment-debtor within the meaning of section 19. Dealing with this contention the Bench expressed the view that the definition of debt in section 3 (iii) includes debts payable under a decree or order of Court, that the liability of the purchaser of equity of redemption subject to the mortgage is a debt within the meaning of the Act, that the procedure provided in a statute for enforcement of the substantive rights conferred thereby should be construed as far as possible, so as to give effect to and not to nullify those rights, and that therefore there is no obvious reason why the term judgment-debtor should not be understood as including a person whose liability is a debt as defined by the Act, more especially as that definition includes a judgmentdebt. The learned Judges referred to the decision in Panduranga Mudaliar v. Vythilinga Redd,1wherein it has been observed: “We think however that the word ‘judgment-debtor’ in section 258 should be construed as including those who claim through him or in his right. To hold otherwise would lead to obvious hardships which we cannot think were contemplated.” The learned Judges referred to a contrary decision of Horwill, J., in Ganapathi Bhatta v. D’Souza2, holding that the word ‘judgment-debtor’ under section 19 must be understood in the sense defined in the Civil Procedure Code, and that therefore a purchaser of the equity of redemption from a Receiver in the insolvency of a judgment-debtor was not entitled to apply under that section, and specifically dissented. 7. Thus it appears to be well settled that the legal representatives representing the estate of the deceased judgment-debtor, though not proceeded against personally can claim the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act No. IV of 1938 if they are agriculturists. 7. Thus it appears to be well settled that the legal representatives representing the estate of the deceased judgment-debtor, though not proceeded against personally can claim the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Act No. IV of 1938 if they are agriculturists. The decision in Palaniappa Chettiar Estate represented by First Executor, Chokkalingam Chettiar v. Ramaswami Naidu,3relied on by the Courts below, deals with the case of an executor who is sought to be made liable for a decree debt as representing the estate of deceased and therefore it is clearly distinguishable. The said decision gives two reasons as to why the executor in that case cannot claim the benefits of Act IV of 1938. One is that the decree is not sought to be executed against the executor personally and the decree is only against the estate in the hands of the executor and there is no provision in the Act under which such an impersonal entity as an estate can claim the relief. The other reason given is that the estate being a charitable trust has been specifically and expressly excluded by the terms of section 3 (1) of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, I am clearly of the view that the decisions in Kona Hasan Fathima Bivi v. Muhammad Muhaideen N achiar4and Nageshwaraswami v. Viswasundararao5. will clearly support the case of the appellant, and the decision in Palaniappa Chettiar Estate represented by First Executor Chokkalingam Chettiar v. Ramaswami Naidu 6has no application. 8. Now that this Court has held that the appellant is entitled to claim the benefits under Act IV of 1938, it is to be seen whether she is an agriculturist. Though the appellant asserted that she is an agriculturist and produced Exhibits A-1 to A-3, patta and kist receipts, to show that she is in fact an agriculturist, the Courts below have not considered those documents and given a finding on that question. That it perhaps due to the reason that they were of the view that the appellant is not entitled to claim the benefits of the Act being a legal representative. The lower appellate Court is therefore directed to consider that question on the basis of the material already on record and dispose of the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court. The C.M.S.A. is therefore allowed and remitted as indicated above. The lower appellate Court is therefore directed to consider that question on the basis of the material already on record and dispose of the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court. The C.M.S.A. is therefore allowed and remitted as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.