VEDURUVARTHI VENKATA CHARI Vs. RAMALAPUDI CHINA DEMUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

(2.) This is a revision filed by the plaintiff in a small cause suit which was dismissed by the lower Court. The suit is filed on the foot of a promissory note for a principal sum of Rs. 4,000/- payable with interest at 18% per annum. The defendant resisted the suit on several grounds, firstly, that the suit promissory note is not true, that the same was materially altered finally that the defendant being a small farmer entitled to the benefits of A.P. Act 45 of 1987, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff however, claimed that he too is a small farmer and that the defendant is not a small farmer. The lower Court found that the suit promissory note is true and supported by consideration and it also held that there is no material alteration in the suit promissory note as alleged by the defendant. The Court further found that the defendant is a small farmer entitled to the benefits of Act 45 of 1987. The Court, however, negatived the plea of the plaintiff that he too is a small fanner. On the said findings the lower Court dismissed the suit.

(3.) In this revision the learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff assailed the finding of the lower Court that the plaintiff is not a small farmer. It is not in dispute that if the plaintiff is held to be a small fanner. He will be entitled for a decree in the suit notwithstanding the finding that the defendant is a small farmer. So the sole question for consideration in this revision is whether the plaintiff is a small fanner or not.