BIRDA Vs. SANWAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated May 14, 1990 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanchore, by which the learned Munsif rejected the objections filed by the judgment -debtor and directed that the decretal amount can be recovered from the judgment-debtor only to the extent he inherited the property of his father, i. e. 30 Bigha 15 Biswas of land.

(2.) DECREE-holder Sanwai Chand and others, on April 9, 1984, filed an application for the execution of the decree in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanchore. The judgment-debtor Birda contested the application and filed objections. It was stated in the application that he is the marginal farmer and it is an year of draught and the execution of the decree may be suspended and some time may be granted to him for filing a certificate that he is a marginal Farmer. He thereafter filed the certificate issued by the Tehsildar (Land Records), Sanchore. It was certified by the Tehsildar that Birda S/o Dharma is a marginal farmer as defined under the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors (Liquidation of Debts Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' ). The decree-holders, in support of their case, examined DHW 1 Sanwal C and, DHW 2 Bhanwar Lal and DHW 3 Bhagirath. The judgment-debtor, in support of his case, examined himself as JDW 1, The learned Munsif, after considering the evidence produced by both the parties on record rejected the objection filed by the judgment-debtor and ordered for the recovery of the amount in the execution of the decree only to the extent of the value of the property which he inherited from his father. It is against this order that the present revision-petition has been filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while ordering for the execution of the decree against the petitioner, the learned lower Court should have considered the case of the petitioner : whether he falls within the definition of "scheduled debtor" or not and for this parpose he should have considered the question whether the petitioner is a marginal farme ? That question need not to be gone into in the present case as I have already observed that from the evidence produced by the decree-holder, it has been proved that the petitioner is not a marginal farmer and, therefore, he cannot be said to be a scheduled debtor under the provisions of the Act.