A DHANABHAYAMMA Vs. KAMAKSHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The problem in this revision petition is whether the Civil Court can itself decide the question whether the defendants in a pending mortgage action are small farmers within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Ordinance, 1976 which was subsequently enacted as A.P. Act 7 of 1977? Or whether the Tribunal constituted under the Act alone can decide that ques- ion and so whether the Civil Court should adjourn the pending matter before it awaiting the decision of the Tribunal?

(2.) The question arose in the present case in the following manner. The respondent filed O.S. 85/197 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirupathi, against the revision petitioners to recover more than Rs. 17,000/- on the foot of a mortgage. On 14th of August, 1975 a preliminary decree was passed. Then the respondent filed I.A. 126/1976 for passing of a final decree and for sale of the hypothecated properties. The revision petitioners filed their counters and the matter was posted for enquiry. When that enquiry was pending, Ordinance No. 25 of 1976 was promulgated. On 2-2-1977 the revision petitioners (Judgment debtors) filed memos claiming that they were entitled to the benefits of the Ordinance as small farmers and that the matter could not be enquired into in view of section 14 of the Ordinance. This was opposed by the decree holder. The lower court repelled the contention of the revision petitioners by holding that the court can enquire into the question whether the judgment-debtors were entitled to the protection of the Ordinance. This view is challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) Sri G. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners strongly relied on section 14 of the Ordinance and the Act which, according to him, takes away the jurisdiction of the civil court in these matters. His contention is that in the case of mortgages, only the Tribunal constituted under the Ordinance and the Act is conferred with the jurisdiction to decide whether the mortgagor is a small farmer and to give a certificate to that effect and the civil court has no jurisdiction to go into this question by virtue of the provisions of section 14. Sri R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent (decree-holder) refuted this argument by relying on various provisions of the Act.