JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application against an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Bundi, abating the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale of certain lands belonging to the defendant under sec. 5 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendant agreed to sell some lands to him for Rs. 1757/- on 7. 6. 61 and to execute a sale-deed and to get it registered within 14 days. It was further alleged that he had performed his part of the cont-ract and the defendant had executed the agreement for sale in which he had acknowledged the receipt of the above amount but the defendant had not performed his part of the contract in spite of notice. THE plaintiff therefore filed the present suit for specific performance in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bundi on 14. 8. 61. He also claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 300/- per year for being kept out of possession. THE defendant contested the suit. He denied having entered into any agreement with the plaintiff. He stated that he owed a sum of Rs. 1200/- to him for which he had pledged ornaments worth Rs. 400/ -. He also stated that he supplied milk worth rupee one per day for 26-1/2 months to the plaintiff and that nothing was due to him towards the loan of Rs. 1200/ -. He also stated that the plaintiff had wrongfully taken away his bicycle about which a criminal case was pending. As for the lands which he is alleged to have agreed to sell to the plaintiff his case was that he had already mortgaged them with possession in favour of one Smt. Fatima. The trial court framed a number of issues and after recording the evidence of the parties held that the defendant executed an agreement for the sale of the suit lands after receiving the consideration mentioned in the agreement. It did not grant a decree for specific performance on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove what property the defendant had agreed to sell. On appeal by the plaintiff the appellate court remanded the suit after framing the following issue - "whether the defendant had contracted to sell the land as mentioned in para 1 of the plaint". Both parties led evidence before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bundi on the above issue. But instead of deciding the suit on merits he held that it had abated because the defendant had filed an application to the Debt Relief Court for the determination of the debt which he owed to the plaintiff. The contention is that the order abating the suit is without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the decision in Manakchand vs. Kaneysingh (l ). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am satisfied that the above decision is applicable to the present case. In Manak Chand's case the allegations on which the suit was brought were these. The defendant owed money to the plaintiff. A settlement of account took place between the parties on 28. 3. 61. A sum of Rs. 12,616. 4. 6 was found due against the defendant as a result of this settlement of account. The defendant agreed to sell a house to the plaintiff for Rs. 2000/ -. Accordingly a credit for this sum was given to the defendant. A sum of Rs. 1782. 4. 6 was relinquished and a sum of Rs. 10934/- remained to be paid. The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale as the defendant did not execute a sale-deed of the house in his favour. It was held that so far as the agreement to sell was concerned it had nothing to do with the transaction of loan. So far as the loan transaction was concerned a credit for Rs. 2000/-was given to the defendant in that account. The agreement to sell was thus independent of the transaction of loan and was not affected by it. The Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act can only apply when there is a debt as defined in the Act, that is a liability owing to a creditor. It only deals with subsisting debts. When the debtor enters into an agreement of sale with his creditor and the consideration for the agreement is a debt, the debt extinguished or wiped out and there is no longer any subsisting debt. It is not open to an agriculturist who has entered into such an agreement to apply for the determination of his debt under sec. 6 as there is no subsisting debt left. The debt which was wiped out completely as a result of the agreement cannot be reopened under the Act for it is no longer a subsisting liability and a suit to specifically enforce the agreement can neither be stayed nor abated. I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order abating the suit and remand it for decision in accordance with law to the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bundi. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this revision application. .;