TALARI VENKATAMMA Vs. MALISETTI ASWATHANARAYANARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the defendant in O.S. No. 254 of 1980, on the file of the Sub-Court, Penukonda. The respondent laid the suit on the suit of a promissory note to recover certain amount due thereon. Apart from the other defences, she contends that she is a small farmer within the meaning of Section 3(t) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act (VII of 1977), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". To substantiate this defence, the petitioner filed one lease-deed, dated 1st August, 1974, executed jointly by her and on Narayana in favour of one Ramcharyulu. She also sought to summon another original lease-deed executed on 9th July, 1971, in favour of one V. Fakruddin and a copy thereof was filed along with the petition. In the first lease, the total extent of the dry land taken was Ac. 3-50 cents of which the petitioner got Ac. 1-75 cents. In the second lease, the lessor himself has half share in Ac. 5-25 cents and thereby she got Ac. 2-15 cents. Thus she is in possession and cultivation of Ac. 4-37 cents of dry land, as a lessee. Therefore, she claims to be a small farmer entitling to the benefit of the Act and the debts stands discharged.

(2.) THOUGH the above factual base is not disputed, it is the contention of the respondent that the rent payable under the leases are of the value of more than Rs. 100; for more than one year; and that they are neither registered nor duly stamped as required under the law. They are foundation for the petitioner to lay her claim to be a tenant. They are, thereby, inadmissible in evidence. Thy cannot therefore, be looked into. This contention of the respondent prevailed with the lower Court and refused one document being received as evidence and another being summoned, under the impugned order, the subject of the present revision petition.

(3.) THE facts that the yearly rent payable under the lease-deeds are of the value of more than Rs. 100 and the duration thereof is for more than a year; they are unregistered and not duly stampted; the petitioner was inducted into possession of the demised lands in pursuance thereof and her continuing in possession as tenant, are not disputed. But in view of the respective contentions, the disputation that centres round the consideration is admissibility of these two lease-deeds in evidence to establish the fact of the petitioner being a small farmer namely of livelyhood is agricultural holding less than one hectare of wet or two hectares of dry land in the case of non-schedule tribes and the income from other source does not exceed one thousand and two hundred. It is true that in construing the beneficial provisions the approach of the Court would be to subserve the object of the Act and the technical pleas that stand as impediments to give the relief to the persons entitled, would be eschewed. Same is the view taken by the Kerala High Court in Vidhyanathan Nadar v. Kochuraman Lakshmanan (supra). But it does not solve problem posed for decision.