K. J. SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter arises under the Karnataka debt Relief Act, 1976 ("the act") and the facts so far as material, are as follows: one Chikkavarada Setty and, his son sathyanarayana Setty together mortgaged 20 guntas of land out of sy. No. 36/4b for Rs. 3,000 by executing a registered deed dated 16th May, 1974, in favour of the petitioner. On 4th June, 1975, Chikkavarada setty executed will bequeathing the said land in favour of his grand daughters by Sarojamma. On 10th October, 1975, Chikkavarada setty died. The legatees under the will who are minors represented by their next friend mother approached the Tashildar, Pandavapura contending that they are debtors as defined under the Act and the mortgaged property should therefore be redeemed with the possession delivered to them. That application was opposed, by the petitioner, on the ground, among others, that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the case, since the mortgage was not executed by the applicants. The tashildar rejected that contention. He held that since the applicants are proved to be debtors they are entitled to the delivery of possession of the property. He accordingly redeemed the mortgage and directed delivery of possession of the property in favour of Respondent-1. The validity of that order is called in question in this petition. ( 2 ) THE short question for decision is whether the legatees under the will to whom the mortgaged property was bequeathed could get relief under the Act? The answer to the question having regard to the scheme and, the provisions of the Act, in my opinion, should be in the negative. The preamble to the Act states that it is to provide relief from indebtedness to small farmers, landless agricultural labourers and persons belonging to the weaker sections of the people. The Act is thus intended to relieve certain classes of persons from their personal indebtedness when they are not in a position to redeem their properties pledged or mortgaged. S. 4 (f) of the Act under which the relief has been granted to respondent-1 reads:"4. The Act is thus intended to relieve certain classes of persons from their personal indebtedness when they are not in a position to redeem their properties pledged or mortgaged. S. 4 (f) of the Act under which the relief has been granted to respondent-1 reads:"4. Relief from indebtedness-- notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force or in any contract or instrument having force by virtue of any such law and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, with effect from the date of commencement of this section,- (f) every mortgage executed by the debtor in favour of the creditor shall stand redeemed and the mortgaged property shall be released in favour of such debtor and where the creditor fails to do so, the Sub-Divisional magistrate having jurisdiction over the place where the mortgaged property is situate may. suo motu or on application of the debtor end after such inquiry as he may deem fit, put the debtor in possession of the mortgaged property. "a inference also may be made to S. 4 (e) which is in the following terms:"4 (E) Every movable property pledged by a debtor shall stand released in favour of such debtor and the creditor shall be bound to return the same to the debtor forthwith and where the creditor fails to do so, the debtor shall on application made to the Sub-Divisional magistrate having jurisdiction over the f lace where the debtor resides be entitled to the return of the same"these sections also indicate that the relief in respect of the pledged articles or the hypothecated properties is intended for the persons who have pledged the articles or executed the mortgages. That much is apparent when S. 4 (e) states 'every movable property pledged by a debtor', and, S. 4 (f) provides 'every mortgage executed by the debtor'. The 'pledging or 'executing' in the context refers primarily to the person who has contracted the debt. He must necessarily be a person to the transaction or instrument, under which the debt was incurred. In other words, the debt must be personal and limited to him and incapable of being passed on to another either by assignment, devolution or bequest to obtain relief under the Act. The Act cannot be construed as a device to defraud the creditors by persons who are really not debtors. In other words, the debt must be personal and limited to him and incapable of being passed on to another either by assignment, devolution or bequest to obtain relief under the Act. The Act cannot be construed as a device to defraud the creditors by persons who are really not debtors. Persons who are well placed in life cannot get the benefit of the Act by assigning their debts to persons who are debtors as defined under the act. That is not the scheme or purpose of the Act. I cannot, therefore, accept the contention urged for respondent-1 and sustain the order of the Tahsildar. ( 3 ) IN the result, the rule is made absolute and the impugned order is quashed. ( 4 ) IN the circumstances, however, i make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .