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 t