RAJAMMAL Vs. SRIRAMULA RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal at the instance of the defendant in o. S. No. 24 of 1975, Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai , the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the lower appellate court was right in negativing the claim of the appellant to the benefits under Tamil Nadu Debt relief Act, 1976 (Act XXXI of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short ). The suit was laid by the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of rs. 5,369 stated to be due from the appellant under a promissory note dated 7. 2. 1969 executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent. The appellant, besides resisting the suit on the ground that the promissory note sued upon was not supported by consideration, claimed that she is a small farmer entitled to the benefits of the Act and as such, the entire debt should be deemed to have been discharged.

(2.) THE trial Court found that the promissory note was fully supported by consideration and that though the appellant had originally owned 7 acres and 80 cents of land comprised in Sathanur Dam, ayacut , at the time of incurring the debt sued upon on 7. 2. 1969, she had sold almost all her lands, excepting an extent of 30 cents, and that therefore, she would be entitled to the benefits of the Act and the debt sued upon therefore stood discharged. On those conclusions, the suit was dismissed. However on appeal by the respondent, the learned Subordinate judge found that the appellant was not a small farmer on the date of incurring of the debt and that her principal means of livelihood is doing business and therefore, she is not entitled to claim the benefits of the Act. On those conclusions, the appeal was allowed and a decree was granted in favour of the respondent as prayed for. It is the correctness, of this, that is challenged by the appellant in this second appeal.