G NAGARAJA RAO Vs. SIVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the counsel.

(2.) Sri T.V.S. Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Kalyan Ram, counsel for the revision petitioner - decree holder had made elaborate submissions stating that the real family of Siva Reddy had large extent of land and even if the branch of Siva Reddy- judgment debtor is taken into consideration, the family owns an extent of Ac.26.69 cents and Ac.12.05 cents and the aspect who are minors or majors at the relevant time had not been decided and further the debt as such is a family debt or individual debt also had not been adverted to. The learned counsel also contended that though the revision petitioner - decree holder discharged his burden, in fact, the judgment debtor has not discharged his burden and even otherwise the suit being O.S. No. 50 of 1962, a very old suit and the amount borrowed relating to a business transaction it does not fall within the meaning of the debt of A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act (Act 7 of 1977) (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). The learned counsel has drawn my attention to the different provisions of the Act. The learned counsel also had contended that at any rate the Act has no application to the debts prior to coming into force of the Act. The learned counsel also further contended that the question that in view of Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), the execution petition itself is not maintainable was neither raised nor argued before the executing Court and for the first time the judgment debtor cannot be permitted to raise that question. The learned counsel also stated that in view of Ex.A.1, it is clear that the decree had been transferred and hence the revision petitioner has a legal right to enforce the decree. The learned counsel had also drawn my attention to Ex.A.1 transfer deed, Ex.A.2 xerox copy of compromise decree and judgment in O.s. No. 5 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, Ex.A.3 certified copy of registered sale deed and Ex.A.4 dated 10.4.1975, copy of declaration (Form No. 1) given by R. Venkata Siva Reddy under A.P. State Land Reforms Tribunal Act. The learned counsel had also contended that the additional non-agricultural income spoken to by P.W.2 had not been considered at all by the Court below. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-decree holder also had placed reliance on several decisions like GEORGE Vs. SAMBAMURTHY, 1984(2) ALT 19, ESWARA KUMARS TRADERS Vs. B. VENKATADRI NAIDU, ; G. GOLLA REDDY Vs. ADINARAYANA REDDY, ; SURYANARAYANA Vs. VEERAYYA, 1985(1) ALT 316; T.RAMBABU Vs. V. RAMAVATHI, 1988(1)ALT987; SHAIK KHAJA HUSSAIN Vs. JAHIRA BI, 1988(2)ALT 457; V.VEERABHADRA RAO Vs. G. MAVULAMMA, 1988(2)ALT 349 and CHINTA SAVITRAMMA Vs. BUDDARAJU SIVAKUMARI, .

(3.) Sri Lakshminarasimham representing Sri V.V. Narasimham, learned counsel for the respondents had raised a preliminary objection that the revision petitioner - decree holder being a non-party to the suit, being a stranger, cannot maintain the execution petition at all in view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 16 read with Order 21 Rule 10 C.P.C. Even otherwise the procedure contemplated under the provisions of C.P.C. is not followed. The learned also had contended that in the light of evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 and also Ex.B.1 it is clear that the judgment debtor is a small farmer and since it is only an individual debt, the holding of the individual debtor only should be computed to see whether the Act is applicable or not. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the finding of the Court below and had submitted that the finding with regard to the computation is a finding of fact recorded by the Court below which cannot be disturbed in revision. The learned counsel also placed reliance on K.V. RAMAREDDY Vs. M. VISWANATH, ; K.N.V.S.N. BABJI Vs. K. SURAMMA, 1984(2)ALT 119; P.VARAHALAMMA Vs. REPETI RAMANNA, ; KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P., AIR 1979 AP 145 and CHINTA SAVITRAMMA case (8 supra).