Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff obtained a money decree against defendants 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs. 2,798.00. He filed E. P. 57 of 1980 on 18-2-1980 for realisation of the decree amount by attachment and sale of the properties belonging to the judgment debtors. That E. P. was dismissed on 24-9-1980 for default of the decree holder to take steps for notice to the judgment debtors. A second application E. P. 75 of 1981 for execution was filed on 16-3-1981. By that time judgment debtors 2 and 3 had died and their legal representatives were impleaded as respondents 4 to 8. The execution sought for was by sale of 52 cents of land that belonged to the deceased third judgment debtor and also by arrest and detention of the first judgment debtor in civil prison. 2. The respondents raised a contention that the decree debt should be deemed to have been completely discharged as per the provisions of S.3(a) of the Kerala Debt Relief Act, 1977 (Act 17/1977) (for short'the Act') for the reason that none of the respondents has income above Rs. 3,000/ per annum nor debt exceeding Rs. 3.000/. 3. The execution court accepting the evidence of PW-1 has entered the following finding in Para.12 of its order: "In the circumstances I do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of Pw1 regarding the income of the respondents which will come more than Rs. 3,000/- per year and in that case the respondents are not entitled for the benefit under the provisions of Act 17 of 1977". 4. The objections raised by the respondents were accordingly over-ruled, directing execution of the decree by sale of the 52 cents of land that belonged to the deceased third defendant (third judgment debtor). 5. Counsel for the petitioners Sri G. Subramanian contends that the court below is wrong in reckoning the total income of all the respondents to hold that they are not debtors within the meaning of the Act, instead of considering the question whether the debt stands discharged under the Act in so far as it relates to all or any of the respondents. Counsel relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this court reported in Sankarankutty Nair v. Janaki Amma (198S KLT 627) in support of the proposition that in considering the question whether the judgment debtors are debtors or not within the meaning of the Act, the case of each one of the judgment debtors should be considered separately with reference to his individual income, and it is not permissible to take into account the total income of all the judgment debtors. 6. There cannot be any doubt about this proposition. But that proposition can apply only if the debt involved is one within the meaning of Sub-s. 3 of S.2 of the Act. S.3 enacts that "debt" sad the interest thereon payable by a "debtor" to a creditor shall be deemed to be wholly discharged, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract or other instrument or in any decree or order of court, with effect on and from the commencement of the Act. As per Sub-s. (3) of S.1, the Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 13th day of January 1977. The expression 'debtor' is defined in Sub-S. (4) of S.2 to mean any person whose annual income does not exceed three thousand rupees and from whom any debt is due, subject to the exceptions in Sub-Clauses (1) and (2). Sub-S. (3) of S.2 defines 'debt' to mean any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from or incurred by a debtor on or before the date of commencement of the Act, whether payable under a contract, or under a decree or order of any court, or otherwise, and subsisting on the date of the said commencement subject to the exceptions mentioned therein. The debt under the Act should therefore be one subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act and a debtor is one from whom any debt is due subject to the exceptions mentioned in Sub-S. (4). 7. On the date on which the Act came into force the decree debt was due from defendants 1 to 3. The evidence of PW-1 accepted by the court below shows that the annual income from the 52 cents of land owned and possessed by the third defendant was Rs. 4,600/ . 7. On the date on which the Act came into force the decree debt was due from defendants 1 to 3. The evidence of PW-1 accepted by the court below shows that the annual income from the 52 cents of land owned and possessed by the third defendant was Rs. 4,600/ . Hence the third defendant was not a debtor within the meaning of the Act. The evidence of PW-1 would also show that the 2nd defendant was running a book shop out of which he was earning an income of Rs. 300/- per month. Hence he was also not a debtor within the meaning of the Act. The first defendant had no income and he is a debtor under the Act. His liability under the decree debt should therefore be deemed to have been fully discharged by virtue of the provisions of S.3(a) of the Act. The liability of defendants 2 and 3 under the decree survives even after their death and their legal representatives are also liable to the extent they have inherited the estate of the deceased. As already noticed judgment debtors 2 and 3 died after the commencement of the Act. The liability of the legal representatives having arisen subsequent to the commencement of the Act, it is not a debt within the meaning of its definition in Sub-S. (3) of S.2. Respondents 1 and 4 to 8 as legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtors 2 and 3 are liable to discharge the decree debt to the extent they have inherited the estate of the deceased. Since the liability they have inherited is not a debt within the meaning of the Act, they are also not "debtors" within the meaning of the expression in Sub-S. (4) of S.2.1 make it clear that the personal liability of the first judgment debtor stands discharged and no steps can be taken for his arrest and detention in civil prison. The order of the court below is modified accordingly, and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as stated above. No costs.