M PULLAIAH Vs. B THIMMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is posted before the Division Bench as our brother, Ramanujulu Naidu felt that the question ''whether the debtor is obliged not only to establish that he is a small farmer within the meaning of Act 7/77 on the date when the Act came into force but also to establish that he continues to be a small farmer when he raised the plea claiming the benefits under the Act?" is of far reaching importance and requires to be decided by a Division Bench.

(2.) The facts that gave rise to the aforesaid question may be stated briefly : From Gandam Obula Setty, the respondent herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and executed a promissory note on 5.7.76 in his favour. The defendant made part payments of Rs. 360/- on 5-7-77 and Rs. 360/- on 5.7.78 which were endorsed on the promissory note. The petitioner herein claiming to be a legatee under the registered will dated. 7-4-1972 of Gandham Obula Setty, filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2112.90ps. being the balance of principal and interest due on the suit promissory note. The plaintiff claimed interest at the statutory rate as the defendant was an agriculturist.

(3.) The defence set up by the respondent herein was that 20 days subsequent to 5.7.78 he paid the entire amount due to Gandam Obul Setty towards the full discharge of the suit promissory note. That the suit is not maintainable as Succession Certificate was not filed and that he was having only Ac. 8.30 cts. of dry land and had two sons, aged 20 and 19 years, and therefore he was a small farmer entitled to the benefits of Act 7/77. Hence he prayed that the suit may be dismissed.