N R OBUL REDDY Vs. SUGUNAVATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises under execution proceedings. The judgment- debtor raised a contention that he is protected by Act 7 of 1977. The property owned by him is Acs. 1-45 cents. He is also a lessee in respect of Acs. 4-21 cents. He has got three sons-two major sons and one minor son. The court below took the view that the lessee's interest in Acs. 4-21 cents cannot be divided into three shares between his to major sons and himself, and in that view it held that he is not a small farmer as the entire holding of Acs. 4-21 cents must be included in. his holding. This view is contested by the learned counsel Sri Narasimha Reddy. He urged that the leasehold interest can also constitute joint family interest and the notional division between the sharess of joint family must be implemented ia this case aho. Oa the otherhand Sri. R. Subbarao, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the leasehold interests is not a joint family interest, that the defendant alone is the lessee and the lessor has to look to him and that the rule of notional partition as if it is the property divisible among the members of the joint family cannot be applied in the present ease.

(2.) I am of the opinion that the leasehold interest also can form part of the character of joint property. The defendant is the father And manager of the family. Admittedly they are members of the joint family. There is nothing to indicate-that the leasehold interest in this case is exclusively for the benefit of the defendant. When the manager takes the property the law presums that it is for the benefit of the entire family. When the family is on agriculturists family the leasehold interest' is divisible and it is indisputably-heritable. The fact that the manager took the property for lease in his namee dose not mean that the other members of the family have no interest and it might be that the lessor has to look to the manager as a contracting party. There is nothing in lav which prohibits the members of the joint family to hold leasehold interest as an asset of the joint farmiy. Their enjoyment including the division between themselves may not effect the lessor's right. It might be by evicting the lessor-manager the whole property may bare to be surrendered but so long the property is in the hands of the joyint family I see no infirmity in the view that all the members of the joint family hold the holding as an asset of the family. As already held the defendant being the manager co-parconer the leasehold interest should enure to the benefit of all the members of the joint family and it is not disputed that if the principle of notional division is applied this case the defendant holds less than the statutory limit of the property and hence protected by Act 7 of 1977. There is no other pound on which the benefit of this Act shall be denied to the petitioner and hence I hold that the leasehold interest im joint family property also is divisible and if we appty that test the defeadant is proteceted byAct 7 of 1977.

(3.) In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and I hold that the debt in the question is abated and the execution in respect of the suit debt cannot be levied against the petitioner, I make no order.as to costs.