VOOSA SATYANARAYANA Vs. SUNKARA VERAPANDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only substantial question of law that arises for determination in this second appeal is:

(2.) The appellants' counsel did not question any findings of the lower appellate Court on facts. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion after going through evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and D.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased first defendant was not holding any land at all and that he was living by selling milk derived from she buffalo reared by him. In those circumstances, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that dairy farming is included in the definition of 'agriculture' under Section 3(a) of the AP Act 7 of 1977 and that principal means of livelihood of the first defendant was therefore agriculture and consequently the first defendant is not entitled to the benefits of the AP Act 45 of 1987. It is contended by the appellants' counsel that a person in order to become a 'small farmer', has to satisfy all the ingredients of Section 3(t) of the Act and that it is not sufficient if he satisfies only one of the ingredients thereunder by taking aid of Section 3(a) of the Act. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondents' counsel that dairy farming is included in the definition of 'agriculture' under Section 3(a) of the Act and that in case a person's principal means of livelihood is from agriculture, i.e., dairy farming, then that person would be entitled to the benefits of the AP Act 45 of 1987. The respondents' counsel also sought to rely upon N. Sudhakararao v. Y. Basavarao,1984 2 APLJ 226 in this regard.

(3.) Relief under the AP Act 7 of 1977 and the AP Act 45 of 1987 was granted by the legislature to three types of debtors, namely a 'small farmer', an 'agricultural labourer' and a 'rural artisan'. That is how a 'debtor' is defined under Section 3(j) of the Act. The plea in this case is that the first defendant is a 'small farmer'. It is not plea of the first defendant or other defendants that the first defendant was an agricultural labourer or a rural artisan. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the first defendant satisfied requirements/ingredients/statutory facts contained in the definition of a 'small farmer' under the Act. Section 3(t) of the Act defines 'small farmer' in the following terms: