JUDGMENT 1. First defendant is the appellant. Suit was for redemption and recovery of possession of plaint schedule property which is 22 cents in extent. 44 cents of land including the plaint schedule property belonged to the plaintiff's father Idiculla. By Ext. B-1 or Ext. A-9 dated 30th Meenam 1114M.E. 44 cents of property was mortgaged in favour of the first defendant and three other persons for a sum of Rs. 1,000. In a partition among the mortgagees in the year 1115 plaint schedule property was allotted to the first defendant and the remaining 22 cents was allotted to his sister. On 19th Thulam 1119 the mortgagor Idiculla filed a petition under, S.16 of the Travancore Debt Relief Act, 1116 for settlement of all his debts, and surrendered all his assets to the control of the court. Ext. B-2 is the petition and Ext. B-3 is the order, dated 13th Kumbham 1124 by which that petition was allowed and it is said that the aforesaid petition is still pending final adjudication. On 7th February 1963 under Ext. A-1 sale deed, Idiculla assigned the property to his son the plaintiff. Idiculla died in 1964. The present suit was filed on 6th September 1969 for redemption, on the allegation that the plaintiff is entitled to equity of redemption under Ext. A-1 sale deed. 2. First defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff has no title to redeem; that the sale deed in his favour is invalid as he has surrendered all his assets to the Debt Relief Court in D.R.P. No. 7 of 1119 and accordingly he is not entitled to redeem. 3. Plaintiff filed another suit O.S. No. 264 of 1969 for redeeming the other 22 cents against the first defendant's sister and it is said that that suit was decreed with which we are not concerned. 4. Later, on the basis of the order by court, plaintiff impleaded all the creditors of his father who were parties to D.R.P. No. 7 of 1119. 5. Both the courts below overruled the contention of the defendant and decreed the suit for redemption and allowed the plaintiff mesne profits also from the date of deposit of the mortgage money. 4. Later, on the basis of the order by court, plaintiff impleaded all the creditors of his father who were parties to D.R.P. No. 7 of 1119. 5. Both the courts below overruled the contention of the defendant and decreed the suit for redemption and allowed the plaintiff mesne profits also from the date of deposit of the mortgage money. The Appellate Court further directed that the plaintiff shall hold the plaint schedule property subject to the final result of D.R.P. No. 7 of 1119, on the file of the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara. First defendant has filed this appeal against the aforesaid decree. 6. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the father Idicula having surrendered the entire properties to the court under S.16 of the Travancore Debt Relief Act, 1116 he is divested of his title and that by assignment under Ext. A-1 the present plaintiff did not get any right or title to the property and not entitled to redeem the mortgage in favour of the first defendant. In deciding that question it is relevant to note the provisions contained in S.16 to 20 of the Debt Relief Act, 1116 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S.16 of the Act provides that any individual who is unable to pay his debts under the other provisions of the Act may present an application to the court for a full settlement of his debts. Under S.16 (3) (e) of the Act he has to file a statement before court that he unconditionally leaves all his assets in the control of the court. The father Idiculla had filed such a statement also before the Debt Relief Court unconditionally leaving all his assets to the control of the court. The argument of the counsel for the appellant is that after leaving the assets in the control of the court he retains no right over the property to be assigned to the plaintiff. Ongoing through the provisions in the Debt Relief Act, I am unable to agree with this contention. It is to be noted that unlike S.28 (2) of the Kerala Insolvency Act there is no provision in the Debt Relief Act that the whole property of the insolvent shall vest in court or the receiver to be appointed by court. Ongoing through the provisions in the Debt Relief Act, I am unable to agree with this contention. It is to be noted that unlike S.28 (2) of the Kerala Insolvency Act there is no provision in the Debt Relief Act that the whole property of the insolvent shall vest in court or the receiver to be appointed by court. What the debtor has to do is only unconditionally leave all his assets in the control of the court. Under S.19 of the Act the court shall settle the liabilities of the debtor in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act. But under the Insolvency Act, on the making of an order of adjudication the whole of the property of the insolvent shall vest in the court or the receiver appointed by court. Such a provision is absent in the Debt Relief Act, whereas the debtor is Only bound to leave the entire assets in the control of the court. In other words, there is no vesting of the property in the court, but it only gets control to distribute it among the creditors in accordance with the provisions contained in the Debt Relief Act. Thus there is no divestiture in regard to the title of the debtor, which continues with the debtor himself subject to the court distributing the assets in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The view which I have taken above is in conformity with the decisions of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Swaragiri Krishnan Ramaswami v. Rangaswami Subbqyyan Lola 1953 KLT 98 and of the Kerala High Court in Gopinathan v. Chellappan Pillai 1971 KLT SN 48 and in Ouseph Mathew v. The Official Liquidator, Catholic Bank of India Ltd. ILR 1976 (2) Kerala 497. 7. S.20 of the Travancore Debt Relief Act also gives an indication that the debtor inspite of his unconditionally leaving the property to the control of the court retains his title over the property. S.20 of the Act is to the following effect: "All alienations made by the debtor during the pendency of an application under S.16 shall be void as against every creditor to whom a debt is owing on the date of the presentation of the petition." From the above section also it is clear that, the alienation made by the debtor of his property is void only as against the creditors. In other words the alienation may not affect the right of the creditors, who can have recourse to the property alienated also, but it does not affect the right of the debtor to alienate the same so long as it will not affect the right of the creditors to proceed against that property. In this case all the creditors have been impleaded and they have not raised any objection to the sale by the debtor of his equity of redemption. As a matter of fact the creditors will only be benefited by the redemption, for, the entire property will be available for distribution among the creditors in discharge of the debt which are involved in D.R.P. No. 7 of 1119. 8. Even apart from Ext. A-1 the plaintiff is at least one of the heirs of Idiculla who died in 1964. The suit was filed only in 1969. It is well settled that the debt relief proceedings could be continued by the plaintiff he being the legal representative of the debtor. Even apart from Ext. A-1 at least a portion of the equity of redemption will vest on him as one of the heirs of Idiculla and in that capacity also he is entitled to redeem and recover possession of the plaint schedule property. It was contended by the counsel for he appellant that the suit was not filed as an heir of Idiculla, but only as an alienee of Idiculla under Ext. A-1 sale deed. But from that alone I do not think that the court is precluded from taking note of that fact. 9. At any rate the first defendant is only a mortgagee. He is not in any way prejudiced and cannot raise the question of the validity of the sale deed so long as the other creditors who were also made parties have not raised any objection. 10. The Appellate Court after confirming the decree for redemption has held that the plaintiff shall hold the plaint property subject to the final result of D.R.P. No. 7 of 1119, on the file of the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara. The Appellate Court also allows the plaintiff to recover mesne profits at the rate of 20 paras of paddy per year from the first defendant from the date of deposit of the mortgage money and the value of improvements. The Appellate Court also allows the plaintiff to recover mesne profits at the rate of 20 paras of paddy per year from the first defendant from the date of deposit of the mortgage money and the value of improvements. But it is to be noted that the plaintiff will not be entitled to redeem and recover possession and mesne profits in respect of this property for himself. He will have to unconditionally surrender the entire property including the mesne profits also to the Debt Relief Court. In that view of the matter, it is made clear that on redemption and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property the plaintiff shall unconditionally leave the property to the control of the Debt Relief Court. In execution of this decree if any mesne profits is realised the execution court shall transfer the same to the credit of D.R.P. No. 7 of 1119, on the file of the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara and the plaintiff will not be entitled to withdraw the same from court without any order in D.R.P. No. 7 of 1119, on the file of the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara. Whatever benefits the plaintiff obtains in execution of this decree shall be unconditionally left to the control of the aforesaid court. The decrees of the courts below are confirmed subject to the aforesaid directions. Second appeal is disposed of as above. No costs