DUVVARI NANJA REDDY Vs. ANJANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the relationship between a depositor and dep site? Is it that of a creditor and debtor oa that of a trustee and beneficiary? are the simple but interesting questions of some importance that arise in this revision petition. 1. The facts essential for the decision are not complicatedjand lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is the judgmentdebtor and the 5th defendant in the suit. The respondent is the plaintiff-decree holder. The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 10.000/- in fixed deposit on 10-4-1974 with the 1st defendant Sri Rama Finance Corporation B. Kotbakota (hereinafter referred to as the corporation') the deposit was for a period of one year and was repayable with interest at 12% per annum after the expiry of the term of deposit. The corporation paid to the plaintiff ceitain amounts and for the failure to pay the balance he instituted a suit on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Madanapalie against the Corporation and defenants 2 to 5 its partners on 6-7-1977 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7775-80 being the balance due out of the fixed deposit amount. All the defendents remained absent. They were set ex parte and the suit was decreed as prayed for on 20-1-1978 with costs. The decree holder then filed an execution petition out of which this revision petition arises, against only one of the partners viz. the petitioner5th defendant. In the affidavit filed in support of the E.P., the decree bolder stated that the judgmentdebtor is having 15 acres of dry and 5 acres of wet land in the revenue village B. Kotbakota, that be gets an annual income of Rs. 15, 000/-from out of his lands besides the income from the 1st defendant-Corporation as one of us partners and that be is having enough amount to pay the decree debt but that he has been wilfully evading to pay the same. It was further averred that since the suit was filed on the basis of fixed deposit. The judgmentdebtor was not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.)

(2.) The petitioner filed his counter objecting to the execution on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits of the Act. According to him, he owns only 5 acres of land, and was personally cultivating the same and the decree-holder filed the application knowing pretty well that the respondent was entitled to the protection of the Act.

(3.) No evidence was adduced before the learned District Munsif either by the decree-holder or the 5th judgment-debtor. The only question that was argued before the court below was whether the amount deposited under the fixed deposit receipts by the plaintiff with the 1st respondent-Corporation is not a debt as defined under section 3 (1) of the Act. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that a person who makes a fixed deposit in a Bank or Corporation for a fixed term carrying interest is not a creditor and the transaction is not a debt and the relationship is not that of a creditor and debtor. The learned District Munsif held that the liability under the fixed deposit arises out of breach of trust reposed by the depositor in the depositee and as such, Exemption V of section 3 (1) of the Act applied to the deposit in question. Therefore, the 1st defendant Corporation which was doing money lending business or the other partners of the firm cannot claim any protection under the Act. He therefore held that the decree debt fell outside the purview of the Act and therefore, the decree holder was entitld to proceed in execution against the 5th defendant judgmentdebtor. This in brief is the genesis of this revision petition by the judgment-debtor.