POTHURI RAMAIAH Vs. SUDANAGUNTA VENKAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Revision Petition, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the first appellate court acted illegally or with material irregularity in passing the impugned order.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff/ respondent before the trial court was that the Revision petitioner herein was a subscriber in,V T C Funds Ltd., Ongole in group No. M. G. 13 of Rs 1,000/-. He has taken the sum of rupees one thousand and he along with 1)2 and D3 executed a suit pronote on 20-8-1969 undertaking to repay the s; me with interest at 18% per annum 'to the VT Chit Funds Limited. After deducting the payments made after 7-5-1970 by the Revision Petitioner herein, an amount of Rs. 787-70 became clue from the petitioner herein and D1 and D2 to the Company. As the Company was owing some amount to the plaintiff/respondent herein, they transferred the pronote infavourof the plaintiff towards the discharge of the debt by the company to him. Thereafter the respondent herein laid the suit for the recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 787-70. The Revision petitioner herein resisted the plaintiff's suit and contended inter-alia that the document in question was not a negotiable instrument and it could not have been endorsed in favour of the plaintiff and that the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was not valid, proper and was without consideration. The trial court raised necessary issues and recorded its findings on various issues. On issue No. 1, the trial Court held that the suit document was a promissory note. On issue No. 2 the court held that the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was true, valid and binding, and held the Revision Petitioner herein liable to pay the suit amount. On the additional issue, the trial court held that in as much as the original creditor V T Chit Funds Limited was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Act VII of 1977, the Revision petitioner herein who is the transferee or assignee cannot claim any better right than the original Creditor and accordingly held that the plaintiff/ respondent herein cannot plead any exemption under the provisions of Act VII of 1977. On the last question whether the Revision petitioner herein and "defendant No. 1 and 2 were small Farmers within the definition laid down in Act VII of 1977, the trial court found that the Revision petitioner herein was a small farmer and as such entitled for the benefit of the said Act. As regards liability of D - 1 and D-2, the Court held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that they were not the small farmers. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed in toto, against the revision petitioner herein and the two defendants.

(3.) On an appeal preferred by the respondent herein, the first Appellate Court held that the plaintiff/respondent herein was a small farmer and as such the defendant was not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Act VI! of 1977.