Judgment :- 1. The appellants are the counter-petitioners in proceedings under S 20 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970 (Act 11 of 1970). The petition was disallowed by the learned Subordinate Judge, but it was allowed on appeal by the learned District Judge. 2. The only question which arises now is whether the respondents in this appeal are entitled to the protection of S.20(1) of the Act. It is admitted that the respondents are agriculturists. It is also admitted that the equity of redemption in certain immovable properties was assigned in their favour under various documents dated 18-11-1124 M.E. (1949) by the defendants in O. S. No. 3 of 1124 against whom the appellants obtained a money decree dated 218 1951. The equity of redemption was later sold on 2012 1958 in court auction in execution of the decree and it was purchased by the appellant themselves (the decree holders). The sale was confirmed on 19 11959. 3. It is contended by Shri Sudhakaran on behalf of the appellants that the protection of S.20(1) does not extend to assigns of judgment-debtors. He submits that, although the expression debtor' under S.2 includes assigns of debtors, S.20 is a special provision meant for a special class of debtors, viz. judgment-debtors, to whom the definition of 'debtor' under S.2 does not apply. It is therefore submitted that an assign of a judgment-debtor is not entitled to seek the protection of S.20(1). 4. S.20(1) reads as follows: "Where any immovable property in which an agriculturist had an interest has been sold in execution of any decree for recovery of a debt... (a) on or before the 1st day of November, 1956; or (b) ... 4. S.20(1) reads as follows: "Where any immovable property in which an agriculturist had an interest has been sold in execution of any decree for recovery of a debt... (a) on or before the 1st day of November, 1956; or (b) ... and the decree holder is the purchaser, then, notwithstanding anything in the Limitation Act, 1963 of in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or in the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force, and notwithstanding that the sale has been confirmed, such judgment-debtor of the legal representative of such judgment-debtor may deposit one-half of the purchase money together with the costs of execution where such costs were not included in the purchase money, and apply to the court within six months from the date of the commencement of this Act to set aside the sale of the property, and the court shall, if satisfied that the applicant is an agriculturist, order the sale to be set aside, and the court shall further order that the balance of the purchase money shall be paid in ten equal half-yearly instalments together with the interest accrued due on such balance outstanding till the date of payment of each instalment, at six per cent per annum, the first instalment being payable within a period of six months from the date of the order of the court." It is not disputed that the expression 'immovable property' includes an equity of redemption. It has been so held by courts: See Mahalavu v. Kusaji (1894) ILR. 18 Bombay 739; Parashram Harlal v. Govind Ganesh Porgaumkar, (1897) ILR. 21 Bombay 226,228; Kanti Ram v. Kutubuddin Mahomed, (1895) ILR. 22 Calcutta 33 at 41; Umes Chunder Sircar v. Zahur Fatima, (1891) ILR. 18 Calcutta 164. The definition of judgment-debtor, for the purpose of S.20, is contained in the Explanation to that Section, the relevant portion of which reads: "Explanation I. For the purposes of this section, (a) ... (b) the expression ‘judgment-debtor' shall include ....... (ii) a person from whom the entire amount due under a decree has been realised by the sale of his immovable property." 5. (b) the expression ‘judgment-debtor' shall include ....... (ii) a person from whom the entire amount due under a decree has been realised by the sale of his immovable property." 5. The respondents who purchased the equity of redemption about two years prior to the passing of the decree, albeit during the pendency of the suit, are persons from whom the entire amount due under the decree had been realised by the sale of their immovable property (equity of redemption). The respondents are agriculturists. Their property was purchased by the appellants (decree holders) in court auction in realisation of the decree amount. Consequently Explanation l(b)(ii) is in terms satisfied and the respondents are therefore judgment-debtors for the purpose of S.20. The lower appellate court has correctly held that the respondents are entitled to the protection of S.20(1). The appeal fails and it is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs Dismissed.