LAWS(APH)-1984-6-20

ANIMIREDDI CHELLAYYA Vs. CHINTA KAMESWARA RAO

Decided On June 28, 1984
ANIMIREDDI CHELLAYYA Appellant
V/S
CHINTA KAMESWARA RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents obtained a decree against the revision petitioners for the rent due in respect of some agricultural lands. When execution was sought the petitioners-judgment-debtors raised an objection that the decree debt is a debt covered by the definition of Section 3 (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act), and under Section 4 of the Act it stands wiped out. This objection was overruled by the Court below on the ground that though, it is a debt falling within the definition of Section 3 (i) of the Act, the said definition excludes under Clause (iv) of Section 3 (i) "any rent due in respect of any property, including an agricultural land let out to a debtor". THE decree obtained by the respondents is for the rent due in respect of agricultural land let out by the respondents to the petitioners. If the rents were due in respect of agricultural land, and were subsisting as on the date of coming into force of the said Act, a suit can be filed for the recovery of the said arrears of rent, which is excluded from the purview of the definition of 'debt' given under Section 3 (i) of the Act. Merely because the respondents obtained a decree prior to the coming into force of the Act and the debt due on the date of the Act merged in the decree, the Act would not have the effect of wiping out the debt as the character of the debt viz., as rent due in respect of agricultural lands, let out to a debtor, remains unaltered even after obtaining the decree. THErefore the provisions of Section 3 (i), Clause (iv) of the Act are attracted and the suit debt would fall outside the scope of 'debt' as defined under Section 3 (i) of the Act. Hence the judgment debtors are not entitled to claim the benefits provided under Section 3 of the Act. THE view taken by the lower Court is correct and there are no grounds for interfering with the same in revision. Hence both of the revisions are dismissed. No COSTS. C.R.Ps. dismissed.