KALISETTI VENKATA RAMANAIAH Vs. TIRUPATI KONDAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein (hereafter called, the plaintiff) filed O.S. No.629 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nellore, for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,600/- being the amount payable on mortgage deed, dated 14-3-1970 executed by the appellants herein (hereafter called, the defendants) and for a charge on the mortgage property. By judgment and decree, dated 24-6-1987, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit debt stands discharged under Section 4 of the A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (for brevity, the Act). The plaintiff, however, succeeded before the first appellate Court. His appeal being A.S.No.61 of 1987 ' on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nellore, was allowed on 28-6-1995. Aggrieved by which, the present second appeal is filed.

(2.) The plaintiff brought the suit alleging that Jayaramaiah and his two sons Venkataramaiah and Dhananjaya (father and two sons) borrowed a sum of Rs.2,500/- for meeting the marriage expenses of the daughter of the first defendant and executed simple mortgage deed, dated 14-3-1970 hypothecating the plaint schedule joint family properties to an extent of Acs. 18.98 of dry agricultural lands and that though a sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid on 18-4-1971, the defendants failed to discharge the debt. In their written statement, the defendants took the plea that they are small farmers within the meaning of the Act, and therefore, the suit debt stands discharged. During the pendency of the suit, the elder son of Jayaramaiah died and his mother was brought on record as legal heir and subsequently, the first defendant Jayaramaiah also died and the legal heirs were also brought on record.

(3.) The trial Court framed seven issues. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.I and marked Exs.A.l to A.20 besides examining P.W.2. Defendants examined D.Ws.l to 3 and marked Exs.B.l to B.24. On considering this evidence, on issue No.4, the trial Court held that the suit debt stands discharged and therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed. The appellate Court, however, took a view that as defendants own more than prescribed limit of agricultural lands, they are not entitled for the relief under the Act.