The main legal point established is the interpretation and application of the provisions of S.2(c)(xi), S.4(2) and (3), and S.5(1) in determining the computation and repayment of debts under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958.

1. The appellant in A. S.462 of 1960 is the second judgment-debtor and the revision petitioner in C. R. P. 645 of 1964 is the debtor-petitioner, in two separate proceedings under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, Act 31 of 1958, against their respective creditors, two banking companies, who are the respondents before us. The appeal and the civil revision petition concern chiefly the application of S.4 (2) and (3) of the Act, to the debts due to the respondents. For the appellant and for the revision petitioner, it was contended, that the computation of these debts for payment under the Act must be in accordance with S.4 (2) and (3), read in the light of the definition of the term'principal' in S.2 (h). For the respondents it was contended that each of the debts being in excess of Rs. 1,500 and having arisen out of a single transaction, is outside the purview of the Act, except to the extent indicated by the proviso to S.2 (c) (xi), under which not only the provisions of S.5 but also of S.4 (2) in which the term 'principal' occurs, are excluded, although the latter is referred to in S.4 (3), and so the debts must be computed in terms of the provisions of the contract between the parties. The courts below having repelled the contentions of the appellant and the revision petitioner, they have come up before us.

2. In each case, the transaction was an over-draft accommodation with the respective respondent. Although the borrowings on certain occasions did not exceed Rs. 1,500, the total amount borrowed on the strength of the overdraft accommodation exceeded Rs. 1,500 in each case. That the borrowings were in each case not made all at once, but on different occasions is immaterial; it has been ruled in Oommen v. Kottayam Orient Bank Ltd. (1963 K. L. T. 1150), which was followed in Chandy Cheriyan v. Travancore General Bank Ltd. (1965 K. L. T. 737) that such borrowing on an overdraft agreement must be held to arise out of a single transaction. The above facts bring both cases squarely within the exclusion in S.2 (c) (xi) from the definition of 'debt'

3. S.2 (c) (xi) and the proviso to it are as follows:

"(xi) any debt exceeding one thousand five hundred rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of this Act to any banking company as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949:

Provided that in the case of any debt exceeding one thousand five hundred rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of this Act to any banking company as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949 any agriculturist debtor shall be entitled to repay such debt in eight equal half yearly instalments as provided in sub-section (3) of S.4, but the provisions of S.5 shall not apply to such debt;"

The argument of learned counsel for the respondents was, that of the categories of debts due to a banking company, that which exceeds Rs. 1,500 borrowed under a single transaction is alone excluded by S.2 (c) (xi), all other categories of debts, viz., debts not exceeding Rs. 1,500 and debts exceeding Rs. 1,500 but not borrowed under a single transaction, are not excluded from the definition of the term'debt', and that while the latter category of debts are amenable to the several provisions of the Act the former category of debts are amenable only to S.4 (3) to the exclusion of S.S. This implies, according to learned counsel, that a debt which exceeds Rs 1,500 borrowed under a single transaction, has to be discharged in full according to the terms of the contract between the parties, and the entirety of the debt without any deduction is to be paid in eight equal half-yearly instalments as stated in the proviso itself.

4. S.4(1), (2) and (3) may now be extracted: "4. Payment of debt in instalments.

(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract or in any decree or order of court, any debt may be discharged in the manner specified in