ORDER Shanmukham, J. 1. The judgment-debtor is the petitioner. 2. In E.P. No. 20 of 1983 in O.S. No. 72 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai brought by the decree-holder for attachment and sale of the immovable properties, the judgment-debtor claimed, protection under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act No. 50 of 1982. It is relevant to note that the suit is for recovery of the value of the jewels weighing 61 sovereigns entrusted by the decree-holder to the judgment-debtor, as the judgment-debtor failed to return the jewels in specie. The Court below, therefore, held that the judgment-debtor would not be entitled to any protection under the Act' and, therefore, ordered further process in the execution. 3. Mr. Palaniappan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit being for recovery of money, the decree-debt will fall within the ambit of "debt" as defined under Section 3(c) of the Act. Whatever may be the entrustment, the suit having been filed for recovery of money, the decree would amount to a liability and, therefore, the judgment-debtor is entitled to seek protection under the Act. Section 3(c) of the Act defines "debt" and it means any liability in cash or in kind, whether secured or unsecured and whether decreed or not, but does not include arrears of taxes due to the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority. It may be stated at once that according to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner would not fall in any of the exceptions envisaged under the proviso to Section 3(d) of the Act. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Abdul Aziz v. Yasodammal and Anr. 1977 T.L.N.J. 347 and Sri Visalam Chit Funds Ltd. v. P.N. Srinivasa Mudaliar (1975) 88 L.W. 415. 4. Before I refer to the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is essential to note the object behind the Act as also the definition of "creditor" in the Act. The object is to provide relief to certain indebted persons in the State of Tamil Nadu from the usurious practices of pawn-brokers money-lenders and other non-institutional sources of credit and to give relief from the debts due to such pawnbrokers, money-lenders and other non-institutional sources of credit. The object is to provide relief to certain indebted persons in the State of Tamil Nadu from the usurious practices of pawn-brokers money-lenders and other non-institutional sources of credit and to give relief from the debts due to such pawnbrokers, money-lenders and other non-institutional sources of credit. Section 2 which deals with declaration, refers to Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. I will now immediately demonstrate as to how both the object and Article 39, will not support the contention advanced by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have already referred to the fact that the suit is for recovery of the value of the jewels which were entrusted by the decree-holder to the judgment-debtor and which were not duly returned to the decree-holder. That this will not be a debt within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the Act is obvious from the fact that the object is to save innocent debtors-from the clutches of the pawnbrokers, money-lenders and other non- institutional sources of credit who resorted to usurious practices while advancing the loan and while recovering the same. Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution provides that the State shall, in particular, 'direct its policy towards securing (b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good and (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. When a decree-holder wanted to realise the value of the jewels entrusted by him with the judgment-debtor, it is not possible to say that the policies envisaged under Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution are in any way promoted. On the other hand, I am to reiterate that if the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner were to be accepted, it will run counter to the policies envisaged in the said sub-sections. 5. Besides the object referred to above, the definition of "creditor" also indicates that any suit for recovery of money in lieu of any article entrusted will not be a debt within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the Act. Section 3(b) of the Act defines "creditor" and it means a person from or in respect of whom the debtor has borrowed or incurred a debt and includes the heir of such person. Section 3(b) of the Act defines "creditor" and it means a person from or in respect of whom the debtor has borrowed or incurred a debt and includes the heir of such person. On the admitted facts in this case the decree-holder herein will not be a creditor within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. I must also point out that to perceive what is sought to be conveyed under the definition "debt", the definition of "creditor" has also to be borne in mind. A conjoint reading of these two definitions will undisputedly indicate that the debt like the present one will not be a debt as defined under the Act. It is now useful to refer to the decision of N.S. Ramaswami, J., in Abdul Aziz v. Yasodammal and Anr. 1977 T.L.N.J. 347. That was a decision rendered under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1972 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1972). In that case, the definition of "creditor" included his heirs, legal representatives and assign while debtor meant any person from whom any debt is due. Thus the two definitions in Act 38 of 1972 are quite different from those found in the Act. Therefore, the ruling relied on by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner will not be of any assistance to the petitioner. The other decision has no relevance at all, as the Division Bench was concerned with the provisions' of the Chit Fund Act and the rights of the stake-holder. 6. According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, even Section 13 of the Act will not help the decree-holder. I am unable to agree, for, Section 13(d) of the Act provides that nothing in this Act shall apply to any liability arising out of breach of trust or any tortious liability. In this case, I have already referred to the fact that the suit is for recovery of the value of the jewels entrusted by the decree-holder to the judgment-debt-Order Thus the cause of action is based on breach of trust. If that is so, this liability is specifically excluded from the operation of the Act by virtue of Section 13. 7. Here is a judgment-debtor who, having suffered a decree as early as 1975, is not willing to pay his debt, but will harass the decree-holder. If that is so, this liability is specifically excluded from the operation of the Act by virtue of Section 13. 7. Here is a judgment-debtor who, having suffered a decree as early as 1975, is not willing to pay his debt, but will harass the decree-holder. I find the revision has no merits, but is intended to delay the realisation of the decree-debt by the decree-holder. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed, but without costs, as the respondent is not represented by counsel.