SUDHAKAR RAO Vs. BASAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 60 of 1976 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,492-50 ps., on the foot of two promissory notes executed by the defendants. The defence was that the defendants are 'small farmers' and the debt is wiped out under the provisions of A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as Act 7 of 1977). Both the Courts held that the defendants are small farmers and dismissed the suits.

(2.) In this second appeal, Mr. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly contended that the view of the courts-below that the defendant is a small farmer is based upon misapplication of the provisions of A.P. Act 7 of 1977. He submits that on his own admission, the defendant gets Rs. 9,000/- of income per year on his milk business. His principal means of livelihood is not income derived from agricultral land and therefore, he cannot he termed as a 'small farmer' within the meaning of Section 3 (t) of Act 7 of 1977.

(3.) Before adverting to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, let me refer to the facts found in the case. On evidence both the courts gave a finding that the defendant tethers and rears cattle and sells the milk realised from the cattle i.e., the activity of the defendant is one of dairy farming. It is not a case where the defendant purchases milk from others and sells the same far profit. That finding of the courts below is not seriously disputed. 'Small farmer' as defined in Section 3 Cl. (t) of Act, 7 of 1977 is as follows :