RAMI REDDI Vs. VEAKATA SESHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a pronotc executed by the revision-petitioner in favour of one Gandhara Vankatasubbaiah, the latter obtained a decree in O.S.No. 90/72 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ongole., against the revision-petitioner and the joint family properties in the hands of his three sons. During the pendency of E.P.13/76 the revision-petitioner and his three sons claimed protection under Act 7 of 1977. The three sons of the revision-petitioner were held to be small farmers and the decree was treated as having abated as against the three sons of the revision- pat tioner. The revision-petitioner thereupon deposited l/4th of the E.P.amount and filed E.A. 560/79 requesting the court to record full satisfacticn of the decree. The original decree-holder Venkatasubbaiah meanwhile died and the present respondents to this revision have been impleaded as his legal representatives.They contested E.A.560/79 on the ground that so far as the revision-petitioner is concerned he has the liability to satisfy the decree as the revision-petitioner was held to be not a small farmer and not entitled for protection under Act 7. of 1977. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the objection of the respondent and after recording part satisfaction only of the amount deposited by the revision-petitioner, dismissed E.A. 560/79. These facts form the background for this revision-petition filed by the revisionpetitioner.

(2.) Mr. poornaiah learned counsel appearing for the revision-petitioner has mainly submitted that having regard to to the decisions rendered by this Court in interpreting the relevant provisions of Act 7 of 1977, the revision-petitioner cannot be fastened with any liabilty in excess of 1/4 share in the E.P. amount; there is no dispute that the debt was incurred by the revision-petititioner as the father-Manager of a Hindu joint family consisting of himself and his three sons; as the three sons of the revision-petitioner have been given protection under Act 7 of 1977, it is but proper that the revision-petitioner should be burdened only with his share of the joint family debt. Before noticing the observations made in the decisions rendered by this Court, it is necessary to examine the relevant material provisions of Act 7 of 1977.

(3.) In Krishna Murthy v. Government of A.P.I a Division Bench of this Court has set out the essential features and provisions of the Act whose constitutional validity was questioned in a batch of writ petitions. It was argued in that case that a joint family though it may satisfythe other requirements, does not get the benefit of the Act. In repelling that contention, the Division Bench ruled: