CHERUVU CHINNA VEMANARI Vs. P R KANUGONDRAYA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against an order of the learned District Munsif, Kadiri dismissing E.A.No. 163 of 1977 in E.P.No 175 of 1975 in O.S.No. 55 of 1974 filed under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The respondent obtained a decree against the petitioner and his two sons of whom one is a minor, in O.S.No. 55 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif, Kadiri. He applied for attachment and sale of certain joint family properties belonging to the petitioner and his sons in E.P. No. 175 of 197 5. At that stage, the petitioner applied to the court of the District Munsif in E.A.N.o. 163 of 1977 under section 4 (1) of the Act for a declaration that the proceedings stand abated since the debt covered by the decree should be deemed to have been wholly discharged for the reason that he is a small farmer within the meaning of Section 3 (t) of the Act. This petition was opposed by the respondent decree-holder as according to him, the joint family of the petitioner is entitled to more than ten acres of land which is far in excess of the maximum extent of agricultural land necessary to qualify him for the benefits of the Act. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that the petitioner is cultivating family lands exceeding five acres in extent and is therefore not a small farmer within the meaning of the Act and accordingly dismissed his application for relief under the Act, with costs. Aggrieved by this decision, the first judgment debtor has preferred this Revision Petition.

(3.) Sri Adinarayana Reddy the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the order of the court below is vitiated since it has taken into account the entire extent of agricultural land held by the family instead of the petitioner's share alone thereof for the purpose of determining whether or not he is a small farmer within the meaning of the Act as according to him even in cases where the debt is due from a joint family and not any individual member of that family, the share of each major member of that family alone should be taken into consideration for ascertaining whether the person concerned is a small farmer or not. Reliance is placed by him on P. Varahalamma vs. Repeti Ramanna (1) AIR 1979 A P. 25) in support of his contention. It is, on the other hand, urged for the respondent-decree-holder, that the order sought to be revised is unassailable as the petitioner admittedly holds and personally cultivates an extent of Ac. 5-73 cents of agricultural land belonging to the family of which he is the manager and not merely his share thereof. The learned counsel adds that the fact that a major son of the petitioner is also entitled to a share in the family lands is of no consequence and all that the court has to take into account for the purpose of determining whether a person is a small farmer or not is the extent of land that is actually held and personally cultivated by him.