NATHRI SATYANARAYANA Vs. THENNETI VENKATA NARASAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the petitioners His claim that since he is a creditor within tie meaning of section 3 (k) of Act (VII of 1977) he is "a person" under clause (xii) of lection 3 (i) and as such the debt in question stands excepted from the operation of tke act was put in issue, but negatived by the trial Court. The same is reiterated in this revision.

(2.) The facts lie in a short compass. The respondent executed the promissory note, Exhibit A-1, dated 18th October, 1975 in favour of one M. Venkatrao. It was endorsed under Exhibit A-2 purported to be dated 2nd October, 1976, in favour of the petitioner for consideration and on foot thereof, he laid suit for recovery of the debt due under the promissory note. The respondent while admitting the execution, put forward that he is a small farmer and that debt, by operation of section 4 of Act VII of 1977 stands discharged and the proceedings in the suit abated. The frial Court accepted the plea of the petitioner that he is a holder in due course and the endorsement was made after the receipt of valuable consideration. It also hold that the respondent is a small farmer, but did not accede to the claim of the petisioner that he is a person under Clause (xii) of section 3 (i) of the Act and dismissed the suit. Thus the revision.

(3.) In this revision, it is not disputed that respondent is a small farmer. But the petitioner claimed that having found him to be the holder in due course, the lower Court ought to have held that he is also a small farmer and that the debt is excluded from the Act by operation of clause (xii) of section 3 (i) thereof. Therefore the suit should have been decreed ID support thereof he contends that as a holder in due course, he is entitled to recover in his own right the debt under tbe promissory note. He is a creditor within the meaning of section 3 (h) of the Act. It is an inclusive definition taking within its ambit an assignee and he stepped into the shoes of the principal creditor. So he becomes ''a porson" within the meaning of clause (xii) of section 3 (i). He being a small farmer the Act takes the debt from its purview. He relies upon the decisions of this Court in G. Basavaiah v Nalamothu Venkammall, and Abdul Aziz v. Smt. Golla Bhumawa.