@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.@mdashThe short question for consideration in this revision is whether the trial Court came to the correct conclusion on Issues 12 and 13 in regard to whether the suit claim constituted ''debt'' within the meaning of that expression defined in the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980. The suit claim arises out of breach of a partition agreement in the following manner :
Plaintiff took part of the partitioned properties subject to a mortgage under the terms of the partition with encumbrance on the property. The property so taken, encumbrance was to be cleared by the defendant who had taken the other part of the property. The defendant not having cleared the encumbrance, the plaintiff himself discharged that encumbrance and in that circumstance, claimed the suit amount as a debt arising out of a partition.
2. Section 10 of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act 1980 provides for certain debts and liabilities not to be affected by the provisions of the Act. Under Clause (j) of that Section it is stated :
"any amount due by such debtor under a partition to another sharer."
Therefore such debt is excluded from the operation of the Act. The type of debt arising under the partition is not specified. But is spoken of in most general terms and therefore calls for very wide interpretation of the expression ''debt due to a sharer''. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, which I have set out earlier, that the suit claim becomes a debt due to a sharer at a partition is quite obvious.
3. The conclusion reached by the Court below is correct and does not call for interference. The revision petition is therefore rejected.
