DUVVARI NANJA REDDY Vs. DESU ANJANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the relationship between a depositor and depositee? is it that of a creditor and debtor or that of a trustee and beneficiary? are the simple but interesting questions of some importance that arise in this revision petition.

(2.) The facts essential for the decision are not complicated and lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor 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. Kothakota (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 certain amounts and on the failure to pay the balance, he instituted a suit on the file of the Principal District Munsifs Court, Madanapalle against the Corporation and defendants 2 to 5 its partners on 6-7-1977 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,775-80 being the balance due out of the fixed deposit amount. All the defendants remained absent. They were set ex-parte and the suit was decreed as prayed for on 20-.1-78 with costs. The decree holder then filed on execution petition out of which this revision petition arises, against only one of the partners viz., the petitioner-5th defendant. In the affidavit filed in support of the E.P., the decree holder stated that the judgment-debtor is having 15 acres of dry and 5 acres of wet land in the revenue village B. Kothakota, that he gets an annual income of Rs. 15,000/- from out of his lands besides the income from the 1st defendant Corporation as one of its partners and that he 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 judgment-debtor was not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) 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.