SANKARA LAXMANA RAO Vs. DASAM CHINA PAPAIAH RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In O. S. No. 167/1975 on the file of the District Munsif Court Pithapuram, the defendant-debtor filed I. A. No. 745/1977 claiming protection of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (Act No. 7 of 1977). The defendant claimed that the above suit instituted by the plaintiff-creditor against him for the recovery of a debt should be dismissed as having abated because he is a small farmer within the meaning of the aforesaid Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (Act No. 7 of 1977), hereinafter called as the Act. The District Munsif Court found that the defendant-debtor who is a non-trial holds a small extent of Ac. 0-37 cents of wet land and Ac. 0-973/8 cents of dry land. On that basis and without taking into account the fact that the debtors wife is possessed of Ac. 9-50 cents dry land, the lower Court held that the defendant-debtor is a small farmer within the meaning of the Act and accordingly dismissed the aforesaid O.S. No. 167/1975 as having abated.

(2.) Against that order of the District Munsif Court, Pithapuram, the plaintiff-creditor filed the present C. R. P. No. 4848/1978 which has been referred by our learned brother Justice Ramachandra Rao to a Division Bench.

(3.) There are two arguments advanced by the petitioner. The 1st contention of the petitioner is that for purpose of determining the applicability of the beneficial provisions of the Act one should aggregate the properties of all those who are mentioned in Section 3 (1) as constituting a family because S. 3 (p) which defines a person takes in a family. In other words, the argument of the petitioner is that in Sec. 3 (t) where the words "small farmer" are found defined, the word family must be read in the place of person. So read the properties of all the members of the family defined in S. 3 (1) must be aggregated. The second contention of the petitioner of the petitioner is that the annual household income as defined in S. 3 (d) should be computed by aggregating annual income of all the family members without excluding the annual agricultural income so as to find out whether it exceeds Rs. 1,200.00 in any one of the 2 years within 3 years immediately prior to the commencement of the Act. When the annual income so computed exceeds the figure of Rs. 1,200.00 the benefit of the Act, according to the petitioner, should be denied to a debtor under the exclusionary words of S. 3 (t) (iii).