G K ANJANEYA GUPTA Vs. PUTTAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by Decree-Holder against the order dated 17-9-1991 passed by the learned District Munsiff, Hindupur in Anantapur District dismissing the E.P. No.111/86 in O.S. No.146/84 on the ground that Judgment-Debtor is entitled to the benefits of A.P. Act 45/87.

(2.) The revision-petitioner G.K. Anjaneya Gupta obtained a money decree in O.S. No.146/84 on the file of the District Munsiff, Hindupur against the respondent herein. In execution of that decree, he filed E.P. No.111/86 for attachment and sale of the immovable properties of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor filed a counter contending, inter alia, that he is a 'small farmer' under the provisions of Act 45/87, that he is entitled for the benefits under the said Act and the decree-debt should be deemed to have been discharged. He also pleaded that he owns and cultivates an extent of 0.83 cents of wet land and 0.71 cents of dry land and that he has got 5 sons and one daughter. During the course of enquiry, the decree-holder got himself examined as P.W.I and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the judgment-debtor, R.Ws.l and 2 were examined and no documents were marked. The decree-holder examined as P.W.I deposed that in the partition effected with his brothers in the year 1980, he got an extent of Acs.2.19 cents of wet land and Acs.0.93 cents of dry land to his share and that he has got four daughters and that his daughters are also entitled for shares and as such, he is also a small farmer under the provisions of the Act 45/87. P.W.I also deposed that he installed a flour mill in the year 1986 and he is running the same and that he is getting Rs.30 to Rs.40/- per day as income. The judgment-debtor examined as R.W.1 deposed that he is having one acre of wet land and 5 acres of dry land and that he got five sons and one daughter and all of them have got shares in it and on division each of them would get 0.75 cents of dry land and 0.15 cents of dry(sic. wet) land and that he has no other source of income. Ex.A-1 is the partition deed. Ex.A-2 is the flour mill plan and Ex.A-3 is the flour mill running licence. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, including the evidence of R.W.2, the learned District Munsiff held that the judgment-debtor is a 'small farmer' and that the decree-holder/creditor is not a 'small farmer' as defined under the Act and therefore, the judgment-debtor is entitled for the benefit under the Act and the decree-debt is deemed to have been discharged and consequently, dismissed the execution petition. Aggrieved of that order, the decree-holder has come up with this revision petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner submits that the decree holder is also a 'small farmer' and as such, he is entitled to proceed with the execution of the decree and that the lower Court erroneously held that the decree-holder is not a 'small farmer'. The learned Counsel for the respondent judgment-debtor submits in support of the impugned order.