Judgment :- 1. The only question urged by the decree-holder-revision-petitioner is relating to the interpretation of the expression 'debtor' in the Kerala Debt Relief Act (Act 17 of 1977) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S.2(4) defines the expression 'debtor' to mean "any person whose annual income does not exceed three thousand rupees from whom any debt is due", subject to the exceptions mentioned therein. As per the Explanation to the definition, the term 'person' shall include a family. 2. In the present case the revision-petitioner obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 2,400/- and interest due under a promissory-note jointly executed by respondents 1 to 3. They raised a contention at the execution stage that each one of them falls within the definition of 'debtor' and the debt stands wholly discharged under S.3 of the Act. The execution court found that each of the respondents has income less than Rs. 3,000/-per annum, the exceptions do not apply to them and they fall within the definition of 'debtor' under the Act. 3. Counsel for the revision-petitioner Sri. C.S. Ananthakrishna Iyer submits that 'any person' referred to in the definition may also take in a plurality of persons and the question as to whether the debt stands discharged under the Act should be considered with reference to the income of all the persons who owe the debt. Counsel relies on S.12 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125 as per which "in all Acts unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context: (1) xx xx xx xx (2) words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa." (Emphasis supplied) We find the interpretation sought to be placed on the definition of the expression 'debtor' in S, 2 (4) of the Debt Relief Act wholly unacceptable. Any person referred to therein does not relate to a plurality of persons. A person is a debtor within the meaning of the Act. if he satisfies the requirements that his annual income does not exceed Rs. 3.000 and his his total debts do not also exceed Rs. 3.000/-. This cannot relate to a plurality of persons. Whether a person is a debtor or not under the Act. is to be determined with reference to the requirements of the definition in the Act and not with reference to any particular debt due from him individually or conjointly with others. 3.000/-. This cannot relate to a plurality of persons. Whether a person is a debtor or not under the Act. is to be determined with reference to the requirements of the definition in the Act and not with reference to any particular debt due from him individually or conjointly with others. If a person satisfies the definition he is entitled to the relief provided for under the Act. The fact that there are others also jointly and severally liable for repayment of the debt cannot in any way affect the status of the individual as a debtor under the Act. Under S.12 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act words in singular shall include the plural unless there is anything repugnant to the subject or context. The subject or context in the matter of the definition of the expression 'debtor' excludes plurality of persons and "any person" referred to in the definition can have application only to an individual whose annual income and his total debts are to be reckoned in considering the question whether he is a debtor within the meaning of the Act. 4. We see no merit in this Civil Revision Petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.