The legal heirs of a debtor are not entitled to the benefit of the U. P. Debt Relief Act, 1977 if the debtor was not alive on the date of enforcement of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition involves the applicability of the U. P. Debt Relief Act. 1977 (the Act) to the legal heirs of a debtor when the debtor was not alive on the date of enforcement of the Act. Are the legal heirs entitled to the benefit of the Act? Are they also debtors within the meaning of the act? facts

( 2 ) LATE Sri Har Prasad had mortgaged his land to one Sri Saheb Singh (the contesting respondent ). Sri Har Prasad died without redeeming the mortgage before the enforcement of the act. His nephews, namely, Sri Bhagwan Singh (the petitioner) and Sri Atar Singh (respondent no. 2), the legal heirs, inherited his property. The contesting respondent filed a suit for recovery of his debt against the legal heirs, which was decreed.

( 3 ) THE contesting respondent started execution proceedings in which the property of late Sri Har prasad in the hands of the legal heirs was sold on 1. 3. 1976. The legal heirs filed an objection against the same. During the pendency of this objection, the Act came into force with effect from 21. 2. 1977. The executing court, by its order dated 26. 9. 1978, held that the legal heirs are marginal fanners within the meaning of the Act and abated the execution proceedings. The contesting respondent filed an appeal, which was converted into revision. The revisional court allowed the revision on 22. 5. 1980. Hence the present writ petition. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED

( 4 ) I have heard Sri Vishnu Sahai, counsel for the petitioner. Following points arise for determination in this case :

(i) The executing court abated the execution proceedings in view of the Act. Could the Court do so on the finding recorded by it?

(ii) Who owes a debt after the death of a debtor? The debt after the death of debtor can be recovered against--his estate, or his legal heirs?

(iii) Are the legal heirs, who inherited the estate of the deceased before the commencement of the act, debtors within the meaning of the Act? Are they entitled to benefit of the Act? 1st Point : THE ORDER OF THE EXECUTING COURT

( 5 ) THE Act, initially promulgated as an Ordinance, was enacted, to provide relief from indebtedness to a landless agricultural labourers, rural artisans, marginal farmers, small farmers, and urban workers. The Act defines the words debt, debtor and marginal farmer in Section 2 (5), 2 (6) and 2 (9) of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides for discharge of all debts of a debtor whose annual household income does not exceed Rs. 2,400. The executing court has held that the petitioner (one of the legal heirs) has 64 decimal of land and is a marginal farmer within the meaning of the Act. But there is no finding about his annual income, yet the executing court abated the execution proceedings. This was incorrect. The execution proceedings could not be abated unless there was a finding that household income was less than Rs. 2. 400 per annum.

( 6 ) THERE is another infirmity. Section 5 of the Act provides consequences of discharge of a debt. It stales that no proceedings can be taken against a debtor, where Section 4 of the Act is applicable. But its proviso clarifies that, if any immovable property has been sold and the sale has been confirmed before the commencement of the Act, then Section 5 would not apply. The property in this case sold on 1. 3. 1976. The Act came into force on 21. 2. 1977. The executing court has not recorded any finding about the confirmation of the sale. Even if the legal heirs were entitled to the benefit of the Act, the executing court could not abate this proceeding without recording a finding about non-confirmation of the sale. The revisional court has not set aside the order of the executing court on the abovementioned grounds, but on the ground that the debtor (Sri Har Prasad) was not alive on the day of enforcement of the Act. Lets consider if this ground is correct. 2nd Point : THE LEGAL HEIRS DO NOT OWE A DEBT.

( 7 ) A person who takes a loan has to pay the same. If he does not, then a c