K RAMASWAMY SETTY Vs. B G SUNKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is to review my judgment in C.R.P.No 7275 of 1979. That judgment is based upon an earlier judgment of a Division Bench of this Court of which myself and Kondaiah C.J were members. That earlier judgment was reported In S. Laxman Rao vs. D.C Papaiah Raju (1) 1980(1) APLJ 228 = A I R 1980 A.P. 191. The decision in Laxmanrao's case laid down that a debt which a farmer holding and personally cultivating a statutorily agreeable extent of agricultural land below the ceiling limit as fixed by Section 3(t) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (in short, 'the Act') owes to his creditor cannot be refused to be treated as having been discharged under Section 4 of the Act on the ground that the total aggregate of the lands which the debtor, his wife and their minor children referred to as 'family' in Sec. 3 (I) of the Act exceeds the statutory limit fixed under Section 3 (t) of the Act. In simpler language the argument that was raised and rejected in Laxmanarao's case was that although the debt was contracted by the husband and although the husband by himself as an individual was eligible to claim the benefits of the aforesaid Act, still he should not be granted that relief, because himself his wife and his minor children together hold lands above the ceiling limit fixed in relation to a small farmer by the aforesaid Sec.3(t). This rejected argument was there sought to be supported by placing reliance on section 3(l), 3(p) and 3(t) of the Act. It is now argued by Sri Subbarao the learned counsel for the review petitioner in this case that the earlier Bench decision in Laxmanarao's case requires re-consideration. He also brought to my notice the fact of my learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J doubting the correctness of that decision and referring the matter to a Full Bench.

(2.) Although In normal circumstances, I would have dismissed this review application on the ground that no cause was made out for reviewing my earlier judgment in C.R.P. 7275 of 1979 the fact that one of the learned Judges of this Court doubted the correctness of Laxmanrao's caseinduced me to re-examine the matter in earnest detail. In intellectual matters, "it is no use disguising the difficulties as it is no pleasure to win the game by sweeping all the chess-men off the table", (see the Art and Craft of Judging of Learned Hand, P. 26).

(3.) The afore mentioned Act enacted for the purpose of providing relief for agricultural labourers, rural artisans and small farmers has given rise to endemic problems of interpretation. But the question which aroused considerable dissension among the members of the Bar is the one which was raised and answered in Laxmanrao's case. That is the one relating to indentity of the 'small farmer' who, along with agricultural labourer and rural artisan, is declared by the Act to be Its beneficiaries. In para 7 of the report of the Bench decision the argument which was advanced and rejected in that case was summarised in the following words. "It is contended that in order to determine whether a person is small farmer we have to aggregate the different extents of land held by all the members of the family as defined in Sec. 3 (I)". Laxmanrao's case laid down that a debt which a small farmer holding and personally cultivating an extent of agricultural land below the ceiling limit fixed by section 3 (t) of the Act and which he owes to his creditor must be deemed to have been discharged under the provisions of that Aci without reference to the extents of lands held by the debtor's wife and his minor children referred to as 'family' in S. 3(1) of the Act This is on the basis that a debt which an individual owes to his creditor can only be discharged by deciding whether he is or he is not a small farmer and not on the basis of his statutory family holding On a careful re-examination of this matter, I find it impossible to doubt that view. On the other hand, I am free to confess that I am to-day more fortified in my conviction than at any other time that above question raised and answered in Laxmanrao's case is correctly answered.