CHINTAPALLI SURYARAP Vs. PENUMALLU APPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder is the petitioner before me. In the lower Court, the judgment-debtor had raised a plea that he was a small farmer and therefore entitled to the benefit of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The lower Court enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that the respondeht-judgment- debtor was a small farmer. It, therefore, dismissed the execution application as it had abated. The decree-holder has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) Mr. M. Jagannadha Rao, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, contends that the lower Court was incorrect in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was a small farmer because, according to him, it is an admitted fact that the judgment-debtor, respondent herein, had transferred Ac. 1-80 cents of wet land in favour of his daughter which alienation was held to be fictitious by a Court of law in O.S. No. 12 of 1972 on the file of the District Court, Pithapuram. The learned advocate contends that, in view of the decree declaring this transfer by the respondent in 'favour of his daughter being fictitious the result would be that the title to Ac. 1-80 cents would reinvest with the respondent. Therefore, when this extent of Ac. 1-80 cents is added to the other property which the respondent holds, that would exceed the extent provided by the Act. Mr. R. V. Subba Rao, the learned Advocate for the respondent; contends that it is an admitted fact that the respondent is not cultivating the land, that the land is being cultivated by his daughter and therefore, he cannot be considered to be personally cultivating the land, and that since the decree has not been executed and the land taken back from the daughter, it should be considered that the respondent does not even hold that land.

(3.) In my opinion, the contention advanced by Mr. Jagannadha Rao had to be acceded to in this case. According to section 3, clause (t) of the Act, "small farmer" has been defined to mean "a person whose principal means of livelihood is income derived from agricultural land and who holds and personally cultivates, or who cultivates as a tenant, or share-cropper or mortgagee with possession, agricultural land which does not exceed in extent........". A close reading of this clause would show that a person, in order to claim the benefit of the Act, should be a small fanner which would mean that his principal means of livelihood is income derived from agricultural land and he holds that agricultural land and personally cultivates it or he cultivates that land lawfully as a tenant or a share-cropper or a mortgagee with possession. The Legislature has gone further and has qualified the definition of the words 'small farmer" by stating that this agricultural land which is lawfully being cultivated and held by a person should also be within the limits provided by the Act. Therefore, it becomes clear that where a person holds a land and personally cultivates or lawfully cultivates the land which is more than the limits prescribed by the Act, then, in that case, that person cannot be considered to be a small farmer. It now becomes clear that, in order to become a small farmer, a person should not only hold the land but also should personally cultivate it. If he holds the land but does not personally cultivate, then, he cannot come within the ambit of the expression "small farmer". To my mind, the decree which has been passed holding that the alienation made by the respondent in favour of his daughter is fictitious, would reinvest the title in the land in favour of the respondent and therefore, it would mean that he holds the land to the extent of Ac. 1-80 cents but does not cultivate the same because, accofdinor to the evidence, admittedly, it is the daughter who is cultivating the land. In these circumstances, the responded is holding the land but since he is not personally cultivating it, he cannot be considered to be a small farmer.