GUMAN MAL LODHA, J.—This is a civil second appeal against the judgment & decree dated the 27th March, 1974 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gangapur City dismissing the appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for claiming the title on the basis of the mortgage deed (Fx. 1) executed by Moola. 3. The defendant No. 2 Kaluram and defendant No. 3 Ram Swaroop had a decree of Debt Relief Court against Moola defendant No. 1. In satisfaction of that decree the property in dispute was auctioned by the court on 8.11.1969 and sold to the defendant No. 4 Murari for Rs. 600/-, and this auction was confirmed by it on 17. 1. 1970. 4. The plaintiff came to the knowledge of the fact of auction in February, 1970, and filed civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff further prayed that he cannot be ejected from the house, till the mortgage amount is paid. 5. The important feature which emerges for consideration was, whether since, before the Debt Relief Court, this plaintiff did not put up the mortgage which he now claims and the debt was discharged, he can now be allowed to agitate this matter by a suit. 6. Both the courts have held that in view of the fact that the debt has been discharged of the plaintiff, he cannot be allowed to get a decree in a suit on the basis of the same debt. 7. Shri G. K. Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant, confronted with the above, submitted that a usufructuary mortgage is not covered under the definition of the debt as given in the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957. Shri Garg relied upon the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court-FB in Mangatrai Vs. Kidarnath (1). 8. Shri Garg has also pointed out that this court in Kajorilal Vs. Bhanwar Lal (2) has upheld that the transfer of suit property by non-agriculturist to agriculturist after first mortgage the same to plaintiff cannot be affected by the provisions of S. 4 (h) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957. 9. It is significant that in Kajori Lals case (supra) this court has noticed that under S. 4 (h) of the Act of 1957, a mortgage claim in the hands of the subsequent transferee is not affected by the provisions of the Act. 9. It is significant that in Kajori Lals case (supra) this court has noticed that under S. 4 (h) of the Act of 1957, a mortgage claim in the hands of the subsequent transferee is not affected by the provisions of the Act. In view of this provision, suit cannot abate. 10. So far as the Punjab case (supra) is concerned, the definition of the word,debt, under the provisions of Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act (7 of 1934) is different, and, therefore, that cannot be an authority for interpreting the word, debt of Rajasthan Law. 11. In series of cases, this Court has observed that the mortgage is covered under the definition provided by the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957, where it has been defined as under in section 2(c):- debt includes all liabilities owing to a creditor, in cash or kind secured or unsecured payable under a decree or order of a civil court or otherwise, where due or not due, but shall not include land revenue or anything recoverable as land revenue or anything recoverable as land revenue other than liabilities payable under a decree of a village panchayat or any money for the recovery of which a suit is barred by limitation." 12. It would thus be seen from the above definition that the liability owing to a creditor on account of secured debt is also covered. It may be kept in view that the above Act is a progressive legislation to give relief to the agriculturists from indebtedness. The very purpose of this legislation would be defeated if the creditor is allowed to adopt the device of avoiding of the provisions of this Act by getting a mortgage. It was probably to clarify the intending object of the legislation, that legislation used the word, secured, in clause (c) while defining the word, debt. 13. The Debt Relief Courts are meant for providing relief to the agriculturists against all debts except which have been excluded in the definition, itself. I am, therefore, convinced that the judgments of both the lower courts suffer from no infirmity and the interpretation of debt to include the mortgage debt, put by the courts-below, is just and proper and consistent with the intention of the legislature to provide relief to the agriculturists. 14. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.