Judgment :- 1. This appeal arises from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Kottayam in E. A. No. 1619 of 1970 in O. S. No. 125 of 1965. The appellant is the 18th defendant. His father who was the first defendant died on 22-10-1968. The decree was principally against the first defendant, defendants 2 to 15 being only the assigns. Defendants 16 to 20 were impleaded in execution proceedings as the legal representatives of the first defendant. 2. The only question which now arises for consideration is as regards the alleged right of the 18th defendant (the appellant), as the legal representative of the deceased father, to claim the benefit of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970 (Act H of 1970). The court below has found that the father was not an agriculturist within the meaning of S.2 (1) (iii) as he had been assessed to agricultural income-tax in "two years within the three years immediately preceding the commencement of" Act 11 of 1970. The court below however found that the appellant was an agriculturist within the meaning of S.2, but since he was claiming the benefit of the Act in respect of a debt due from his deceased father he could not get that benefit unless his father was himself an 'agriculturist' as defined by the Act. 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the father was not assessed to agricultural income-tax "in any two years within the three years immediately preceding the commencement of Act 11 of 1970 as the father died on 22-10-1968 and, although an assessment was made in respect of the income derived from his estate, the assessment fell not on the father, but on his legal representatives. In such circumstance, counsel contends, the father was not excluded from the class of agriculturists protected by the Act. 4. The object of Act 11 of 1970 is to confer a benefit on a class of agriculturists these income during the three years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act did not exceed the prescribed limit. All persons assessed to agricultural income-tax on an income exceeding Rs. 8,000/- per annum "in any two years within the three years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act", i. e., 14-7-1978, are excluded from the purview of the Act. All persons assessed to agricultural income-tax on an income exceeding Rs. 8,000/- per annum "in any two years within the three years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act", i. e., 14-7-1978, are excluded from the purview of the Act. In other words it was not the affluent agriculturists who the legislature intended to protect, but only those whose income did not exceed the prescribed limit. 5. Agriculturist is defined by S.2 of Act 11 of 1970 as follows: - "(1) 'agriculturist' means a person who has an interest, other than as a simple mortgagee, in any agricultural or horticultural land in the State of Kerala, and includes (a) an agricultural labourer; (b) a kudikidappukaran; and (c) a tenant; but does not include (i) (ii) (iii) arty person assessed to agricultural income-tax in any two years within the three years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. or under any other law relating to agricultural income-tax, on an income exceeding eight thousand rupees per annum. Explanation. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1S72, where a creditor proves that his debtor is a person assessed to the tax mentioned in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) for the period referred to in that sub-clause, the burden of proving that such debtor does not fall under the category specified in that sub-clause shall lie on the debtor; This is an inclusive definition. This means only persons having an interest in agricultural or horticultural land as agricultural labourers or kudikidappukars or tenants and other persons having a like interest, but not earning an income in excess of Rs. 8,000/- per annum, are the beneficiaries under the Act. Simple mortgagees are excluded from this class. 6. S.2(4) defines a debt: 'debt' means any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from or incurred by an agriculturist on or before the commencement of this Act. whether payable under a contract, or under a decree or order of any court, or otherwise, but does not include 7. A "debtor" is defined under S.2(5) to include bis legal representatives or assigns who are agriculturists. whether payable under a contract, or under a decree or order of any court, or otherwise, but does not include 7. A "debtor" is defined under S.2(5) to include bis legal representatives or assigns who are agriculturists. S.2(5) reads: "'debtor', 'creditor', 'melpattamdar', 'mortgagee', and 'mortgagor' shall include the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of the debtor, creditor, melpattamdar, mortgagee and mortgagor respectively: Provided that in the case of a debtor, such heirs, legal representatives or assigns are also agriculturists." 8. The object of the Act is to confer a benefit on the agriculturists in respect of debts due from them personally or from their predecessors provided they and their predecessors came within the definition of the term 'agriculturist' under the Act. 9. An assessee under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (Act XXII of 1950) means "a person by whom agricultural income-tax is payable". A 'person' is defined under S.2(m) as follows: "(1) Any individual or association of individuals, owning or holding property for himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit and partly for another either as owner, trustee, receiver, common manager, administrator, or executor or in any capacity recognised by law; (2) Hindu undivided family; (3) A firm; (4) A company; (5) An association of individuals whether incorporated or not; (6) Any institution capable of holding property." (emphasise supplied). S. 24 of Act XXII of 1950 says: "24. Tax of deceased person payable by representatives. (1) Where a person dies his executor, administrator or other legal representative shall be liable to pay out of the estate of the deceased person, to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the charge the agricultural income-tax assessed as payable by such person or any agricultural income-tax which could have been payable by him under this Act if he had not died. (2) ... ... ... ... (3) ... ... ... . 10. It is not disputed by the appellant that the income derived from the agricultural properties owned, or held by the father during the years in que7stion far exceeded the limit prescribed under S.2 (1) (iii) of Act H of 1970. Ext. B1 is a certificate issued by the District Collector showing that the father had been assessed to agricultural income-tax for the assessment years 1967-1968,1968-1969 and 1969-1970. Ext. B1 is a certificate issued by the District Collector showing that the father had been assessed to agricultural income-tax for the assessment years 1967-1968,1968-1969 and 1969-1970. What is however disputed is the finding of the court below that the father was not an agriculturist as defined under Act 11 of 1970. According to the appellant, ho assessment order was or could have been made for two years within the three years immediately preceding 14-7-1970, for the father died during the financial year 1968-1969. The fallacy of this argument, in our view, lies in the supposition that the Act postulated a personal assessment and not an assessment upon the legal representatives in respect of the income derived by the agriculturist. Assessment of the legal representatives was in respect of the income earned by the deceased and the legal representatives were assessed as persons who stepped into the shoes of the deceased for the purpose of dealing with his estate. 11. The object of the Act is to confer the benefit upon the defined class of agriculturists. Explanation to S.2 (1) (iii) shows that once the creditor has proved that his debtor is a person who has been assessed to agricultural income-tax for the specified period, the burden shifts to the debtor to prove that he is not an agriculturist as defined under the Section. This he can do by showing that the income on which he was assessed did not exceed Rs. 8,000/- per annum. This burden of proof must be discharged either by the debtor Himself personally or on his death by his legal representatives, who themselves must be proved to come within the definition of 'agriculturist'. Until then Act 11 of 1970 will not avail the debtor who seeks its protection. 12. It was not the legislative intent to allow the legal representative, albeit an 'agriculturist' himself, to claim the benefit of the Act when the deceased for whose debt the legal representative bears the prescribed liability was not an agriculturist in terms of the Act. In the circumstances we agree with the reasoning of the court below. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.