SIDDA REDDY Y Vs. K VENKATRAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the plaintiff who had instituted the suit O.S. No. 446 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur for recovery of certain amounts due under promissory note dated 10-4-1983. The suit promissory note is alleged to have been executed by the respondent herein (Defendant in the suit) in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. The trial Court on evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No 446 of 1986 the defendant-respondent herein carried the matter in appeal by filing A.S.No. 52/92 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Madanapalle. The learned Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the defendant and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No. 446/86. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree in A.S.No. 52/92, the plaintiff-appellant herein has filed this Second Appeal.

(2.) Sri C. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submitted at the bar that the first appellate Court erred in law in allowing the appeal. The learned Counsel submitted that the defendant himself has given admission in the evidence that he holds more than eight acres of land and therefore he will not be entitled to the benefit under Act 45 of 1977. The learned Counsel further submitted that once it is held that the defendant holds more than eight acres of land, he cannot be styled as 'small farmer' and Act 45 of 1977 (sic. 1987) would not come to his rescue. Learned Counsel further submitted at the bar that the defendant- respondent herein produced Ex. B-1 pattadar pass book which shows that the defendant is a holder of Ac. 3-70 cents of dry land and Ac.0-65 cents of wet land. All the entries made in the pattadar pass book are held to be correct; even in that event it will not benefit the defendant as the defendant has orally stated in his evidence that he had more than eight acres of land. It appears from the judgment of the first appellate Court that the appellate Court held that Ex. B-l has presumptive value under Section 6 of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971. The oral evidence might have been given by the defendant by mistake who is a rustic and villager and therefore the first appellate Court ignored the evidence of the defendant herein.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to show that if at all the defendant holds more land than what is noted in Ex. B-1, it was (sic. was not) the duty of the plaintiff to produce the revenue records in the trial Court to rebut the presumption which arises under Section 6 of the above said Act. Such a step does not appear to have been taken by the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the first appellate Court.