KUKKALA SURANNA Vs. KUNALA RANGANAYAKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the judgment- debtor. In the execution, he pleaded that he is a small farmer, eatiiled to the benefit of the provision of section 4 of Act VII of 1977. On negation by the executing court, he present revision has been filed.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that he is a small farmer and the respondent himself has admitted in the promissory note executed by the petitioner that the loan was obtained not only for agricultural purposes but also for discharge of the sundry debts and family expenses. Therefore it could be taken that the loan is taken for agricultural purpose, it is also contended that the respondent when examined as P. W. 1 did not even state that the petitioner is having more than five acres of land and therefore he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Poornaiah learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner himself when examined as R. W. 1 admitted in his cross-examination thus: "For fertilizers supplied to me he got the promote obtained from me. I do not know when he stopped the business. Five acres are required for 1000 rupees medicines", (obviously it is a mistake for 'Manure'.) From this he contends that when the debt was incurred for the ' purpose of purchasing fertilizers, the debt get excepted under clause (viii) of section 3 (i) of the Act, which reads thus: