RONGALI SIMHACHAIAM Vs. PATHALA RAMAYYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the judgment-debtor. He filed an application under Sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act (VII of 1977) (hereinafter called the 'the Act') to declare that the decree has been extinguished. The plea of the decree-holder is that she is also a small farmer and, therefore, the decree debt does not got extinguished. Both the Courts below have given a finding that the judgment-debtor is a small farmer. The trial Court held that the decree-holder is not a small farmer and therefore the decree debt has been extinguished. On appeal, the appellate Court held that the decree-holder is a small farmer and therefore the decree does not get extinguished and reversed the judgment and decree of the lower Court. Against this judgment the present revision has been filed.

(2.) The Appellate Court recorded a finding that the decree-holder possessed Ac. 1-24 6/7 cents of wet land. It also held that Ac.2-23 cents of wet land and 0-72 cents of dry land which the decree-holder was alleged to be cultivating as a tenant of her husband's brother, is not proved and that it amounts only to proxy cultivation and therefore excluded the said land.

(3.) Sri C.Poornaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-judgment-debtor has vehemently contended that if once it is established that the decree-holder cultivated the land, it is enough that she comes within the definition of Section 3 (t) of the Act and therefore it is not necessary that it should be established that she cultivated the land as a tenant. It was admitted in the evidence that she cultivated the land. In view of that admission it must be held that the land cultivated by her must be included in her holding. In support thereof, he relied upon a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in D.China Pappayya v. S.Rama- chandra, (1981) 2 An.W.R. 315 : A.I.R. 1982 A.P.- 39. I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A reading of the main part of Section 3 (t) would clearly indicate that "small farmer" should satisfy that: 1. The principal means of livelihood of a person is the income derived from agricultural land; 2. He must held and personally cultivate the land and 3. He must cultivate as a tenant or share-cropper or mortgagee with possession of agricultural land. This land shall not exceed the extent governed under the Act, namely, (1) one hectare of wet land or two hectares of dry land, and (2) should also satisfy the income test prescribed under the Act. The finding of the appellate Court is Ac.2.23 cents of wet land and Ac.0-72 cents of dry land belonging to her husband's brother is not proved to have been cultivated by her as tenant. This is a finding of fact based on evidence and relevant considerations. I am satisfied from the consideration of the judgments of the Courts below that the appellate Court correctly recorded this finding. From this promise, the question is whether mere cultivation would be enough regardless of the interest held by the person cultivating, to come within the sweep of Section 3 (t) of the Act. Section 3 (t) postulates not merely the personal cultivation of the land but also must hold and cultivate the same in his character as a tenant or share-cropper or mortgagee with possession of the agricultural land. If these two conditions are satisfied, then the said land is to be computed within the holding of the person. From the reading of the finding of the appellate Court, the inference to be deduced is that though the respondent cultivated the land of her husband's brother, she will be a mere helper without having any interest therein as a tenant. Kuppuswami, C.J., speaking on behalf of the Full Bench, considered the scope of Section 3 (t) of the Act in the context of the first part of this section in Paragraph 27 of the judgment holding that both the limits should be satisfied. The contention therein was that the word 'and' should be read as 'or' and, if so read, it has to be considered that "person holds" or "person cultivates" should attract the provisions of Section 3 (t) of the Act. This contention was met and repelled. In that context it was held thus: "Similarly, a person who does not personally cultivate any land but holds land less than the extent prescribed will also be a small farmer, as the person also satisfies both the conditions laid down." But this observation has to be considered in the light of the facts therein and the contention raised. The Full Bench did not intend to lay down that though the person cultivates the land but is not possessed of any personal interest should also be considered to have held the land. That is why the Full Bench emphasised that not only cultivation but also having a personal interest as a cultivator with an intent to derive agricultural income therefrom should be satisfied. On the basis of the finding of the appellate Court referred to above, we have to consider whether the respondent with a view to include the land belonging to her husband's brother and cultivated by her should be cultivated in her capacity as a tenant with a view to derive income therefrom. That finding cannot be reached on the basis of the evidence on record except to hold that she cultivated as a proxy on behalf of her husband's brother as found by the Court below. Therefore, it must be held that the respondent did not cultivate the land belonging to her husband as a cultivator as her principal means of livelihood to derive income therefrom so as to have acquired any interest in the land. So, it cannot be computed within her holding. If that land is excluded, admittedly her holding is less than the prescribed limit and thereby she also becomes a small farmer and consequently the decree debt does not get extinguished- From this perspective, it does not warrant any interference in this revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without costs. C.R.P. dismissed.