Judgment :- 1. The judgment-debtor against whom proceedings have been taken in execution of a money decree claimed benefit under Act 17 of 1977 and that has been rejected by the lower court on the ground that his debts exceed Rs. 3,000/-and as such he is not a debtor entitled to the benefit under the Act. This is challenged in this revision petition. 2. The petitioner's counsel contends that the finding of the lower court that the petitioner's debts exceed Rs. 3,000/-, is arrived at by reckoning the debts due from him to certain co-operative societies which should not have been done as debts due to societies are exempted under S.2 (3) (a) (v) of the Act. From the finding it is seen that the petitioner is a debtor to a Land Mortgage Bank registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and also to another society. It is by adding the amounts due to these institutions and the decree debt in question that the lower court has come to the conclusion that the debts exceed Rs. 3,000/-. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether this can be done to deny the benefit under the Act to the petitioner. Relevant portion of S.2(4) reads thus: "(4) "debtor" means any person whose annual income does not exceed three thousand rupees, from whom any debt is due, but does not include (i) any person from whom debt or debts exceeding three thousand rupees (excluding interest) is or are due; If the words "debt" or "debts" in the definition are understood only in their ordinary meaning of any liability in cash or kind owed by one person to another irrespective of the nature of the liability or the character of the creditor, a person whose liability or liabilities exceed Rs. 3,000/-will not be a debtor. A creditor may or may not be any of the persons or institutions referred to in S.2 (3) (a) to (n). That is of no consequence to find out who is a debtor. But according to the petitioner's counsel the expression "debt" or "debts" used in S.2(4) must be understood in the light of the definition of the word "debt" referred to in S.2 (3). That is of no consequence to find out who is a debtor. But according to the petitioner's counsel the expression "debt" or "debts" used in S.2(4) must be understood in the light of the definition of the word "debt" referred to in S.2 (3). According to him since S.2 (3) (a) to (n) exclude certain categories of liabilities from the definition of the word "debt", in understanding the same expression in S.2 (4) the categories of debts excluded in S.2 (3) should not be taken into account. Though prima facie this argument seems attractive a close scrutiny of the definition of the word "debt" in S.2 (3) reveals that this submission is incorrect. S.2 (3) defines the word debt" as 'the liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from or incurred by a debtor. The debtor referred to here must satisfy the definition given in S.2 (4). If that word is given the limited meaning contended for by the petitioner's counsel, one will be arguing in a vicious circle to find out who is a debtor and what is a debt without getting at an idea of both the expressions. On the other hand if the expression "debt" or "debts" in S.2 (4) are understood in their ordinary meaning there will be no such absurdity. Any liability in cash or kind will be a debt and the word "debtor" will mean any person from whom any kind of liability in cash or kind not exceeding Rs. 3,000/-alone is due. So understood the main clause of S.2 (3) will take in any liability in cash or kind due from such a debtor. From such liabilities the liabilities of the type referred to in clauses (a) to (n) will have to be excluded to constitute a debt for the purposes of the Act. Phis will make the definitions in S.2 (3) and 2 (4) sensible and workable and that has to be done. It follows, therefore, that the word "debt" or "debts" used in S.2(4) will take in any liability in cash or kind irrespective of the nature of the liability or the character of the creditor. This interpretation will accord with the scheme and purpose of the Act also. It is intended to give relief to the weaker section of the society. A person whose annual income is less than Rs. This interpretation will accord with the scheme and purpose of the Act also. It is intended to give relief to the weaker section of the society. A person whose annual income is less than Rs. 3000/- and whose credit capacity is also less than that amount is alone intended to be benefited. There are many persons whose assets may consist of buildings, machinery etc., which may not yield any appreciable annual income. But those assets may be good marketable securities and on that large amounts would have been advanced to them by banks or societies. On the guarantees of such persons loans may have been advanced to a person having income not exceeding Rs. 3,000/-. Such debtors will also pass off as debtors and misuse the provisions of the Act not intended to benefit them. That is not the purpose or intention of legislature. Therefore the petitioner's contention that the debts due from him to co-operative societies cannot be reckoned to disqualify him from being a "debtor" under the Act is incorrect. But this does not dispose of the Civil Revision Petition 3. The petitioner has got a contention that the debts due to the Societies referred to are debts incurred many years prior to the commencement of the Act and only if the aggregate liability exceeds Rs.3,000/- on 13-1-1977 he will be disqualified to be a debtor under the Act. This is correct and the lower court has not enquired or gone into this aspect of the matter. The decree-holder's counsel also contended that on the petitioner's own admission in his objection to the proclamation schedule his income will exceed Rs. 3,000/-. It was pointed out that in that objection he has stated the number of trees standing in the properties brought to sale and the income therefrom will easily be above Rs. 3,000/-. This also is a matter which requires consideration of the lower court. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed, the order of the lower court is set aside and the case is sent back to the lower court for fresh consideration and disposal in the light of the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.