VEGIRAJU RAMA RAJU Vs. MADDURI SATYANARAYANA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the judgment debtor and he claimed the benefits of AP Act 45 of 1987 which gives relief against indebtedness to small farmers. In the present case there is no dispute that the etitioner is a small farmer but the dispute is whether the decree holder is also a small farmer or not.

(2.) Under the Act if the decree, holder is also a small farmer, the judgment debtor, even if he is a small farmer is disentitled to the benefits of the Act. The finding of the lower court is that the debt in question is a personal debt of the judgment-debtor and that the money advanced is also a personal advance by the decree- holder. In that context, the court considered the debt as a debt personally owed to the decree-holder in his individual capacity and not the joint family comprising of himself and his two sons. Therefore the court below rightly took into account the 1/3rd share of the property of the decree-holder, namely, 1/3rd of Acs. 5-97 cents. There is no illegality in the above method of computation in view of the facts stated above. There is no proof in the lower court or even before me that the money was advance out of joint family funds.

(3.) It is also argued that the wife of the decree-holder owns Acs. 3-13 conts of land and the same should also have been clubbed with the holding of the decree- holder. It may be noticed that the Act does not contain any provision of clubbing the property of the wife while dealing with the individual indebtedness or the individual advances made by the husband For the aforasaid reasons, the view taken by the lower court is correct and does not warrant interference.