1. This appeal was referred by a Division Bench of this court to the Full Bench since two important questions arise for decision in this appeal and the Division Bench considered that it was desirable that the matter be examined and pronounced upon by a larger Bench.

2. When the State Bank of Travancore, a subsidiary Bank within the meaning of clause (k) of S.2 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 took out execution of the decree in O. S. No. 28 of 1963 in the Sub Court of Kottayam as decree-holder the judgment-debtor filed a petition under S.8 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act 11 of 1970 seeking amendment of the decree in terms of the provisions of the said Act. The judgment-debtor claimed to be an agriculturist entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act relating to the scaling down of the debt. The Subordinate Judge assumed that the petitioner was an agriculturist. He found that the decree-holder State Bank of Travancore was a Banking Company. Since any debt exceeding three thousand rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of Act 11 of 1970 to any banking company was excluded from the definition of the term 'debt' under S.2(4)(1) of the Act, but the proviso to S.2(4)(1) enabled such a debt to be repaid in 8 equal half yearly instalments, the learned judge found that the judgment-debtor was entitled only to that benefit. He was found not entitled to the benefit of S.5 of the Act relating to the restriction on interest payable under the provisions of the Act. The learned judge found that no question of scaling down arose and consequently he dismissed the petition by the judgment-debtor. That is the order challenged in the appeal to this Court.

3. Whether an appeal would lie against such an order was one of the two questions urged in the case. S.21 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 11 of 1970 is the provision concerning appeals. That action provides that an appeal shall lie against any order passed under sub-section (i) of S.7 or S.9 or S.11 or S.13 or S.14 or S.16 or S.20 to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the court which has passed the order. An order under S.8 is not one of the orders against which an appeal is provided for under S.21. Whether, nevertheless, an appeal could be taken against such an order is the question. The second contention arose out of the plea by the appellant that it was wrong to treat the State Bank of Travancore as a Company. The finding of the court below that it is a Banking company is said to be incorrect. If that be the case, it is said, S.2 (4) (1) would not apply and the decree-debt would not be a debt excluded from the definition of the term'debt' in S.2 (4). The Act must, therefore, operate to enable the petitioner to seek scaling down of the debt in the execution proceedings.

4. Let us first examine the question whether this appeal is maintainable. Velu Pillai J., in Varkey Mathew v. Velayudhan Pillai. (1965 KLT. 674) held that an order refusing to amend a decree under the corresponding provision in S.7 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act 31 of 1958 was appealable under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure since the order amounted to a decree. In reaching this decision the learned judge purported to follow the dictum of the Privy Council in Adaikappa Chettiar v. Chandrasekhara Thevar (AIR. 1948 PC. 12). A Full Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court bad occasion to consider a similar question in Itty Sankaran v. Ittiyathi Kochukutty, (1953 KLT. 883). The question arose in connection with a right of appeal against an order under S.16 of the Travancore Debt Relief Act 2 of 1116. That was a provision enabling a debtor who was unable to pay his debts to seek settlement of his debts in the manner provided in the section. There was no provision in that Act for an appeal against an order under S.16 of the Act. After exhaustively examining the authorities on the q