RAJA SIDDA RAMAIAH Vs. VANNUR VALI SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree-holder is the petitioner. The Revision arises out of the execution and the question raised is the applicability of Act 7 of 1977. One Turaka Pedda Hussain Peer Sahcb who is the sole defendant-judgment-debtor filed E.A. No. 237/77 along with nis two major sons and resisted the execution on the ground that they are in possession of Acs. 8-60 cents and they are entitled to the benefit of Act 7 of 1977. The decree-holder resisted the said application contending that the two major sons of the judgment-debtor have nothing to do with the debt and they have no share in the estate and the entire property belongs to the judgment-debtor and in fact he owns larger extent than Acs. 8-60 cents. Pending the enquiry into the above application, the judgment-debtor died and petitioner 4 to 10 were brought on record.

(2.) The trial court found that the judgment-debtor owns Acs. 13-00 of land and he died possessed of the laid extent but overruled the objection of the decree-holder that under Muslim Law the sons are not entitled to the share during the life time of the father and held that the principle of personal law has to be rejected as the object and the purpose of the Act is to provide relief from indebtedness to agricultural labourer, artisan or small farmer. I am clearly of the opinion that the view of the court-below is clearly unsustainable.

(3.) The definition of 'debt' in Sec. 3(i) and 'debtor' in Sec. 3 (j) and the operative portion of Sec. 4 of Act 7 of 1977 may be perused.