Judgment :- 1. A debtor wished to have settlement of his debts by resorting to the ameliorative provisions contained in S.15 of the Kerala Agriculturist Debt Relief Act, Act 11 of 1970 (for short'the Act'). He filed an application for that purpose in which he had shown two items of debts due to the State Bank of Travancore (for short 'the Bank') and two other debts (involving much smaller sums) due to other creditors. But he showed in the application only 22 cents of land as belonging to him, out of which 7 cents form a paddy field and the balance is garden land. The Bank contended, interalia, that the debtor has large number of other assets also. The trial court allowed the application on 8-6-1972 and appointed a Receiver to take immediate possession of the property shown in the application. Later an interlocutory application was filed by the Bank for a declaration that the document dated 31-8-1967 (styled as partition deed) executed by the debtor along with his wife and children (marked as Ext. Al) is void and also for a direction to the Receiver to proceed against the other properties covered by Ext. Al. The trial court found that Ext. A1 was "intended to defeat and delay the creditors". However, the trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the transfer made in Ext. A1 is only voidable and hence it can be avoided only by filing a suit for that purpose. On the said view, the interlocutory application was dismissed. The appeal filed by the Bank before the District Court was dismissed. But the learned District Judge held that the contention of the Bank is barred by res judicata as the Bank has not challenged the first order (dated 8-6-1972) by filing an appeal. This Civil Revision Petition is filed in challenge of the aforesaid judgment of the District Court. 2. The first question to be considered is whether the court, in proceedings under S.15 of the Act, has the power to decide the validity of Ext Al. If the said question is answered in the affirmative, the next question which arises for consideration is. whether the plea of the Bank is barred by res judicata. 3. S.15(1) of the Act enables an agriculturist who is unable to pay his debts, to make an application to the court for a full settlement of his debts. Sub-sec. If the said question is answered in the affirmative, the next question which arises for consideration is. whether the plea of the Bank is barred by res judicata. 3. S.15(1) of the Act enables an agriculturist who is unable to pay his debts, to make an application to the court for a full settlement of his debts. Sub-sec. (3) enumerates the particulars to be included in the application, which should contain the amount and other details of all claims against him and also the details of all his properties together with specifications of the value of the properties. The application should also contain a statement that he unconditionally leaves all his assets in the control of the court. Sub-s. (6) says that "the court shall determine the admissibility and the amount of each claim against the applicant or his properties and shall for such purpose take all steps necessary for the determination of any question raised in the case". Sub-sec. (7) says that the procedure prescribed in the Insolvency Act shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to those proceedings. S.16 (1) provides that the court shall "after determination of the admissibility and the amount of each claim under sub-s. (6) of S.15", settle the liabilities of the debtor in the manner provided under S.16. 4. The above provisions show that the court has all the powers to effectively dispose of the application until the debts are fully settled. Nothing can be read from the aforesaid two sections which limits or in any manner restricts the power of the court to decide all questions which may be necessary for the effective settlement of the debts. If the court has no power to declare the transactions created by a debtor as invalid or void, if they are really so, the function of the court will be reduced to the formal work of simply accepting what the debtor has declared to be his 'properties, even if, as a matter of fact, he has other properties. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Kunhitty Sahib v. Cheru (1964 K.L.T. 287) that "the court is bound to determine the available assets of the debtor because the claims due to him are taken to include assets which nominally stand in the names of others but really belong to the debtor". A Division Bench of this Court has held in Kunhitty Sahib v. Cheru (1964 K.L.T. 287) that "the court is bound to determine the available assets of the debtor because the claims due to him are taken to include assets which nominally stand in the names of others but really belong to the debtor". The Division Bench was considering the scope of S.15 of Act 31 of 1958 which was the previous corresponding Act of Act 11 of 1970. The following observations of the Division Bench are relevant in this context: "The proper procedure to be adopted is to conduct an enquiry as to whether more assets than are admitted by the debtor are available for distribution in a settlement under S.18. If as a result of such an enquiry it is found that properties had been so concealed, the court can treat the same as assets for the purpose of distribution under S.18. Hence it has to be held that the court can enquire into the nature of the transfers made by the debtor under Ss 15 to 18." This was followed by Vaidialingam, J. in M. Pathummal v. Padmanabha Pillai (1965 K.L.T. 323). Thus the position is doubtless that it is for the court exercising powers under S.15 of the Act which has the incidental power to decide whether a transaction is invalid, or void and not binding on the creditors and consequently to treat the properties covered by such transactions as properties of the debtor. 5. In dealing with the next question that the plea is barred by res judicata, learned counsel has referred to the following observation made by the trial court in the order dated 8-8-1972: "No evidence has been adduced to show that the petitioner owns other properties". It is contended that the aforesaid observation must be treated as a finding that the debtor has no other properties. But the learned Sub Judge has also observed in the same order that "if the petitioner owns other properties the creditors can proceed on such properties by executing their decrees". It is evident that the learned Sub Judge was not concerned at the said stage to come to a finding whether Ext.A1 is to be treated as void or not. Two stages are contemplated in the enquiry under S.15 of the Act. It is evident that the learned Sub Judge was not concerned at the said stage to come to a finding whether Ext.A1 is to be treated as void or not. Two stages are contemplated in the enquiry under S.15 of the Act. The first stage ends with the determination regarding the admissibility and the amount of each claim against the applicant. Sub-s. (6) permits the court to take all steps necessary for the determination of any question raised in the case and "for such purpose". The purpose envisaged in the sub-section at that stage is only to determine the admissibility and the amount of each claim against the applicant. The second stage arises only after such determination. This is made clear in sub-s. (1) of S.16 of the Act which contains the following provision. "The court shall, after determination of the admissibility and the amount of each claim under sub-s. (6) of S.15, settle the liabilities of the debtor in the manner mentioned thereunder". So, the stage for settlement of the liabilities sets in only after determination of the claims etc. The order dated 8-8-72 was passed in exercise of S.15(6). Any observation made by the court during the said stage regarding the properties of the debtor, has no consequence. At the most such observation would only be provisional. Raman Nayar, J. has stated in Jaini Ali v. Narayana Pillai (1961 K.L.T. 174) that the functions of the court (under S.15 of Act 31 of 1958) are largely administrative and the adjudication has to be made "at two stages". Of course, those stages were not distinctly provided in the corresponding provision in Act 31 of 1958. But the present Act makes a clear vivisection of the two stages. What is to be decided in the second stage has to be done afresh notwithstanding any observation made in the earlier stage pertaining to the area to be surveyed during the latter stage. No such observation can be used as a bar of res judicata for the lawful discharge of the court's function at the latter stage. 6. During settlement proceedings a creditor is entitled to file application for annulment of any transaction created by the debtor. It is not necessary that such application should be filed by the receiver. (Vide Madan Kumar v. Hari Narain Agrawal - AIR 1977 Allahabad 141). 6. During settlement proceedings a creditor is entitled to file application for annulment of any transaction created by the debtor. It is not necessary that such application should be filed by the receiver. (Vide Madan Kumar v. Hari Narain Agrawal - AIR 1977 Allahabad 141). For the foregoing reasons I hold that the Bank is entitled to have an enquiry into the case that Ext. A1 does not affect the rights of the debtor over the properties mentioned therein. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the presumption under S.17 of the Act cannot be extended to the transactions made before the date mentioned therein, namely, 25-7-1968. No doubt that the presumption is not available since Ext. A1 was executed before the said date. But absence of presumption will not help the debtor in this case. Learned Sub Judge has said that he has no doubt about the fact that the transaction was intended to defeat and delay the creditors. There is no need to resort any presumption when there is amble evidence to prove the point. Presumptions are only aids to determine the burden of proof when a particular issue has to be decided. A perusal of Ext. A1 will show that it is a sham document executed only to defeat the creditors. Neither the wife nor the children of the executant had any right in those properties previous to the date of execution of it. The recitals in the document that the properties therein belong to himself and bis wife and children in equal shares as co-owners have no basis at all. Learned Sub Judge has rightly observed that the aforesaid recital "is only an eyewash and intended to make it appear that the original petitioner's wife and children had right in the property even before the execution of Ext. Al". Thus without the aid of any presumption it can be safely held that Ext. A1 is a void transaction and therefore all the properties mentioned therein can legitimately be treated as properties of the debtor. In settling his debts, the court shall take into account those properties also. The trial court is directed to proceed further in making the full settlement of the debts in the light of the above findings. The Civil Revision Petition is thus allowed and the order under attack is set aside.