SATYANARAYANA Vs. K GANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No. 207/ 1977 has resisted the suit. In the written statement originally filed by him, his plea was that he is an agricultural labourer, entitled to relief under Act 7 of 1977. Later, he applied for permission to file an additional written statement to enable him to raise the plea that he is a small farmer and in that capacity also he was entitled to protection under Act 7 of 1977. The learned Subordinate Judge, Visakha- patnam, allowed the defendant to file the additional written statement and take the further plea that he was a small farmer entitled to relief under Act 7 of 1977. The plaintiff has thereupon come forward with this revision petition.

(2.) The only submission made by Mr. Venkatarami Reddi is that the status of the defendant as an agricultural labourer is different from his status as a small farmer and that both the said statutes are mutually exclusive and that the learned Subordinate Judge is not correct in permitting the defendant to file an additional written statement. At the stage of pleadings it is open to the defendant to raise such pleas which he considers provide him with an adequate defence. The defendant cannot be shut out from raising the plea that he is entitled to protection under Act 7 of 1977. It is for the court, on a consideration of the evidence, to determine whether the defendant falls under the category of either an agricultural labourer or a small farmer and whether the defendant is entitled to any relief on either of these grounds. The permission to file the additional written statement was properly given.

(3.) The Revision is accordingly dismissed No order as to costs.