The burden of proof regarding the termination of a kuri transaction under the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970 lies with the decree-holder, not the judgment-debtors.

1. The defendants in O. S. No. 380 of 1966 of the Munsiff's Court, Palghat have come up to this court with this second appeal challenging the decision concurrently given by the courts below holding that the defendants are not entitled to a stay of the proceedings taken against them in execution of the decree passed in the said suit under S.3 (1) of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970 (Act 11 of 1970), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The executing court held that the defendants have failed to establish that they are agriculturists entitled to the benefit of the Act even though the liability in question is a debt as defined is S.2 (4) of the Act. The lower appellate court has held that the defendants are agriculturists within the meaning of S.2(1). On the question as to whether the liability in question is a debt the learned Subordinate Judge took the view that since the decree is admittedly for recovery of the money due by the defendants under a kuri transaction the onus of showing that the kuri had terminated more than a year before the commencement of the Act so as to fall outside the exemption contained in S.2 (4) (k) was on the judgment-debtors and that they had failed to discharge the said burden. It is on this ground that the Subordinate Judge has confirmed the decision of the executing court holding that the proceedings are not liable to be stayed under S.3 (1) of the Act.

2. S.2 (4) (k) of the Act has defined the expression'debt'. We are concerned in this case with sub-clause (k) and the material part thereof reads as follows:

"any liability incurred or arising under a chitty or kuri which is registered or licensed under the Travancore Chitties Act, 1120, or the Cochin Kuries Act, VII of 1107, or conducted under any chit fund scheme, and which has not terminated one year before the commencement of this Act."

When a particular liability has been shown by the debtor to fall within the definition of 'debt' as contained in the main part of clause (4) it is for the person, who wishes to put forward the plea that the liability in question is one covered by one or other of the exemptions mentioned in sub-clauses (1) to (n) of clause (4), to substantiate such case. The exemption under clause (k) is limited to liabilities incurred or arising under kuri transactions which had not terminated one year before the commencement of the Act. The view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge that it is for the debtor to establish that the kuri had not terminated one year before the commencement of the Act does not appear to me to be correct. The decree-holder is the person who was conducting the kuri and the date when the particular kuri terminated is a factor which could be satisfactorily established by him on the basis of the records in his possession. The lower court was not justified in casting on the judgment-debtors the burden of proving that the kuri was not one which had not terminated one year before the commencement of the Act. The rejection by the court below of the prayer for stay on the sole ground that the said burden had not been discharged by the judgment-debtors was erroneous and illegal. However, the period for which the execution had to be stayed under S.3 (1) of the Act has already expired and hence the prayer for stay cannot now be granted. On that limited ground this second appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that the adverse findings entered by the courts below against the judgment-debtors will not operate against them in the matter of their moving the executing court for other reliefs under the Act. If and when such a claim is put forward it will have to be adjudicated upon afresh uninfluenced by any of the observations or findings contained in the orders passed by the two courts below.

3. The second appeal is disposed of as above. The parties will bear their respective costs. No leave.