(1.) The point in these two revisions which is common and so disposed of by a common order, is whether it is open to the legal representatives to claim that they are small farmers within the meaning of Act 7/77 with reference to the debt which their ancestor and contracted and which was subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act though the debtor who had initiated lis in this behalf and failed to establish that it was a debt within the meaning of the Act. The answer is found in a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Abdul Aziz vs. Golla Bhumavva (1) 1982 (1) A.P.L.J. 379 as under :
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decision rendered against the original debtor wherein the specific plea was taken that this debt will have to be discharged as he was a small farmer within the meaning of Act 7/77 was dismissed and also confirmed in appeal and therefore it is not now open to the legel representatives to once again claim the relief that they are small farmers, with reference to the same property that was left behind by the original debtor as it would constitute res judicata against the legal representatives.
(3.) The counter contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents is that when once it is accepted that it would be open to the legal representatives also to agitate and seek relief under Act 7/77 notwithstanding the fact that earlier there was a decision against the original debtor and also notwithstanding the fact that the original debtor died subsequent to the commencement of the Act during the pendency of the appeal preferred by him against the order of the original Tribunal, resulting thereafter in dismissal of the same, it will be open to the legal representatives to agitate de novo with reference to their position as to whether they were small farmers or not and it is certainly competent for the court to once again with reference to their claim status and the property involved which they inherited subsequent to the death of the original debtor.