E CHINNA RANGAIAH Vs. C RANGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O. S. No. 276 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Giddalur is the appellant before me. The original plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of money on the basis of a mortgage deed Ex. A-1 dated 10-8-1957. The plea of the defendant was one of discharge and in support thereof, he filed Exhibit B-2 dated 1-11-1970. The defendant further pleaded that he was a small farmer as defined in Section 3 (t) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and as such he was entitled to the benefits thereof. After framing the issues and putting the parties to trial, the trial Court gave a finding that the debt was still subsisting because the trial Court had not accepted the plea of discharge pleaded by the defendant. The trial Court, however, also found that the defendant was a small farmer and as such he was entitled to the benefits of the Act. The legal heirs of the original plaintiff also claimed that they were small farmers and as such they were also entitled to the benefits of the Act. On evidence the trial Court found that plaintiff No. 1 was getting an income of Rs. 1,200.00 other than agricultural income and so be was not a small farmer. But so far as plaintiff No. 2 was concerned, her claim was that the was a cooly. The trial Court rejected this claim of plaintiff No. 2 as it found that she had not claimed to be an agricultural labourer within the meaning of Section 3 (b) of the Act. The trial Court also found that the original creditor was not a small farmer and, therefore, not entitled to claim the benefits of the Act. Consequently, having found the defendant to be a small farmer, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, and the appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court by holding that plaintiff No. 2 was a small farmer and, therefore it decreed the suit to the extent of her half share. While doing so, it also gave a finding that the defendant was also a small farmer; but since plaintiff No. 2 was a small farmer it held that the suit had not abated. Hence, this Second Appeal.

(2.) Mr. Jwalanarasimhulu, the learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant contends that having regard to the definition of the word 'creditor' as found in Clause (h) of Section 3, and the definition of the word 'debt' as found in Clause (i) of Section 3 read with Sub-clause (xii) of Clause (i) of Section 3 of the Act, the lower appellate Court was incorrect in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs because, according to the learned Advocate, it is only when it is found that the person from whom the debt was contracted by the debtor, was an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer then only such a debt would not come within the ambit of the word 'debt' as defined in Section 3 (i) of the Act and as such the suit would not be hit by the provisions of the Act. What the learned Advocate contended was that if the original creditor was an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer, then the borrowing of a debt from such a person would not be considered to be a debt under the Act and, therefore, the Act would not be applicable. But where the original person from whom the debt was contracted by the debtor was not an agricultural labourer, nor a rural artisan, not a small farmer, then it would be considered to be a debt within the meaning of the Act, and the suit would be continued until the defendant establishes that he is a rural artisan or an agricultural labourer or a small farmer. Mr. Jwalanarasimhulu further contends that while defining the word 'creditor' in Clause (h) of Section 3, the words 'his heirs, legal representatives and assigns' are used, which would only mean that the term 'creditor' takes in its wake his heirs, legal representatives and assigns. Therefore, if the original creditor dies, his heirs, legal representatives and assigns could also file suit as they would be considered as creditors; but if the 'person' (original creditor) was an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer, then the debt would not be considered to be a debt within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, the Act would not apply to such a debt

(3.) I am of the opinion that the contention advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellant will have to be acceded to in this case. In order that a debtor should get the benefit under the Act it is necessary that the debt should be a debt within the ambit of Section 3 (i) of the Act. Section 3 (h) defines a 'creditor' to be a person from or in respect of whom the debtor has borrowed or incurred a debt and includes his heirs, legal representatives and assigns. Inclusion of heirs, legal representatives and assigns it only meant for the purposes of showing that in case the original creditor dies, his heirs, legal representatives and assigns would also be considered as creditors. Therefore, it is for them to show that this is not a debt coming within the ambit of the word 'debt' as defined in Clause (i) of Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 (i) of the Act defines a 'debt' to include any liability owing to a creditor in cash or in kind, whether secured or unsecured payable under a decree or order of a Civil Court or otherwise and subsisting at the commencement of this Act, but does not include, as per Sub-clause (xii), any debt contracted by a debtor from a person who is an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer.