CHALLA RAMAMURTY Vs. PASUMARTI ADINARAYANA SONS REGD FIRM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions of law of considerable importance are raised in this group of revision petitions. They are heard together and disposed of by this judgment. The facts : In execution proceedings by the decree-holders, the judgment-debtors contended that they were small farmers within the meaning of Act 7 of 1977 and the debt must be deemed to have been discharged. The plea was accepted in some and rejected in others depending on the evidence. Treating the decisions on this question as decrees, aggrieved parties filed appeals under S.96 of the Civil P. C. Appeals were held to be maintainable in some and the cases were disposed of on merits. Some Courts took the view that they are not maintainable in view of the amended sub-sec. (2) of S.2 of C. P. C. Aggrieved by the said orders these revisions are filed.

(2.) The contentions on behalf of the petitioners are two-fold. (1) Even after the amendment of sub-sec.(2) of S.2 by Act 104 of 1976, decisions under S.47 C. P. C. are decrees provided that they satisfy the tests mentioned in the first part of sub-sec.(2) of S.2. Prior to the amendment, all decisions under S.47 C. P. C. were decrees. By omitting the words "Section 47" from the definition of decree, only decisions that have the attributes mentioned in the first part of the clause are decrees and the determination whether a person is a small farmer entitled to the benefits of Act 7 of 1977, though passed in execution proceedings is a decision in the suit and as such it is a decree appealable under S.96 of the C. P. C. (2) The amending Act 104 of 1976 has no retrospective operation and does not affect vested rights. It has no application to cases where decrees in suits were passed prior to the Act.

(3.) We will take up the first contention first. S.2 Sub-sec.(2) prior to its amendment was as follows :-