I SURYANARAYANA Vs. M MANGARAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the defendants against the reversing judgment in a suit based upon a promissory note. The trial court while rejecting the plea of the defendants that the suit promissory note is a renewal of the prior debt contracted 15 year? prior to the suit and is devoid of consideration, however, dismissed the suit holding that the defendants are small farmers and that the suit debt has abeted under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act or "Act No. 7 of 1977").

(2.) On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned find Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada while confirming the findings that the suit promissory note is not a renewal of a prior promissory note, that the defendants executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration and that the defendants arc small farmers, however, held that (he plaintiff is a small farmer with in the meaning of Section 3 of Act No. 7 of 1977 and as such, the defendant cannot get the protection under Act No. 7 of 1977 even though they are small fanners. He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with costs together with interest at 12% perannum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.

(3.) The attack of the learned counsel for the appellants is two fold. Jn the first instance he attacked the finding of the Lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff is also a small farmer by contending that there is no plea in the plaint that the plaintiff is a small farmer and that Exs. A. 2 to A. 8 arc subsequent to the filing of the suit. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that while granting the decree, the Appellate Court awarded future interest at 12% per annum from 15-2-1982 till the date of realisation which is irregular.