CHENGAL RAO S Vs. P PARAMASIVAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.E.P.No. 153 of 1987 in O.S.No. 138 of 1986 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Punganur. The suit, which was instituted in the year 1986 was decreed on 5-5-1987. The plaintiff, the respondent herein filed O.E.P.No. 153 of 1987. In the O.E.P., the petitioner-judgment debtor took a categorical stand that he is a small farmer and so he is entitled to the benefit of Act 45 of 1987. In support of his contention, the petitioner-defendant examined himself in O.E.P.No. 153 of 1987 before the trial Court as R.W.1 and filed verified copies of 10(1) accounts and No. 2 adangal, and got them marked as Ex. B-1 and B-2. The respondent-decreeholder who got himself examined as P.W.1, deposed before the Court mat the defendant is a wealthy man and he is also doing business. Besides that, he has also deposed that Act 45 of 1987 has no application.

(2.) The lower Court on a consideration of the submissions held that the burdent lay on the judgment debtor to prove that he is a small farmer and held that he failed to establish that he is a small farmer except marking Ex.B-1 and B-2 and ordered the judgment debtor to deposit monies covered by the decree by 13-11-1995 or face the consequences in default. Against that order which is dated 27-10-1995, the present C.R.P. has been filed.

(3.) Sri Gangaiah Naidu, counsel representing petitioner-judgment debtor contended that the benefits of Act 45 of 1987 have to be given to a party, who, initially, succeeds in showing that he is a small farmer and that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits. Though the petitioner has filed Exs. B-1 and B-2 i.e. 10(1) accounts and No.2 adangal, the lower Court rejected the same and held that the petitioner failed to prove that he is a small farmer. It is therefore contended that when initially the burden lay on the petitioner and the same was discharged, the Court below ought to have accepted such a contention and dismissed the Execution Petition.