Rasineni Lakshminarsu vs Akula Sreenivasulu

R. Bayapu Reddy, J.—This revision petition is filed by the respondent-Judgment Debtor in E.P. 137 of 1990 in O.S. No. 415 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Kadiri questioning the orders dated 10-12-1991 by which his plea claiming the benefits under Act 7/77 as a small farmer was rejected.

The respondent herein who is the Decree Holder in E.P. No. 137 of 1990 had filed the said execution petition seeking arrest of the petitioner who is the Judgment-Debtor. The petitioner contested the said execution petition claiming the benefits of Act 7 of 1977 contending that he is a small farmer within the meaning of Act 7/77 and the debt shall, therefore, be deemed to have been discharged and that he is also not having sufficient means to pay the decree amount and as such the E.P. is liable to be dismissed.

The learned District Munsif rejected the plea of the petitioner regarding the benefits claimed under Act 7/77 observing that the suit pronote is dated 15-6-1978 and Act 7/77 came into force on 29-12-1976 and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefits of Act 7/77 as the debt was not in existence by the date of coming into force of Act 7/77. He has further observed that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefits of Act 45/87 which came into force on 1-1-1988 and which applies to the transactions for the period from 29-12-1976 to 31-12-1987 as he did not claim any benefits under the said Act. He also came to the conclusion that the petitioner who is the Judgment Debtor is having sufficient means to pay the decree amount. As such his arrest and detention in Civil Prison were ordered. Questioning the said orders, the present revision is filed contending that the lower Court has erred in rejecting his plea claiming the benefits under Act 7/77 as a small farmer without going into the merits of the case and solely on the ground that Act 7/77 has no application; that such orders are erroneous and illegal and are liable to be set aside.

The point that arises for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the orders of the lower Court rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the benefits under Act 7/77 as a small farmer ?

It is an admitted fact that the suit pronote is dated 15-6-1978 and Act 7/77 which came into force on 29-12-1976 does not apply to the debts which are incurred subsequent to the coming into force of the said Act in view of the provisions of Section 4 and the definition of a "debtor" as contained in Section 3 of the said Act. But it is to be seen that subsequently Act 45 of 1987 known as the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1987 was enacted and it came into force with effect from 1-1-1988. It is seen from a perusal of the various provisions of Act 45/87 that the said Act was enacted only with a view to extend the benefits of Act 1/11 even to the subsequent dealings. It is mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for passing Act 45/87 as follows :-

"...............As the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (Act 7 of 1977) as it stands does not cover the debts incurred by agricultural labourers, rural artisans or small farmers after the commencement of the said Act, it has been decided to apply the said Act of 1977 except Section 4 thereof mutatis mutandis to the debts discharged as aforesaid and also to empower the Government to make such adaptations and modifications of the said 1977 Act and the rules made thereunder."

Section 3 of Act 45/87 covers the debts incurred on or after 29-12-1976. It is mentioned in Section 3 that every debt borrowed or incurred during the period between 29-12-1976 and 31-5-1989 (as per the subsequent amendment) owing to any creditor by an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. Section 4 (1) of Act 45/87 provides that all the provisions of Act 7/77 except Section 4, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the debts which are deemed to be discharged u/s 3 as they apply in relation to the debts referred to in the said Act and all the provisions of the said Act shall be read and construed as if the said provisions had been included and enacted in this Act. Section 4 (2) of Act 45/87 provides that Act 1/11 and the Rules made thereunder shall apply to the debts when once the State Government makes such adaptations and modifications of Act 1/11 and the Rules made thereunder as may be necessary or expedient for such purpose. Section 4 (3) of the Act 45/87 provides that notwithstanding that no provision or insufficient provision has been made under Sub-section (2) for the adaptations of the provisions of Act 7/77 ox the Rules made thereunder, any Court required or empowered to enforce those provisions may, for the purpose of facilitating, their application to such debts, construe those provisions in such manner without affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper in regard to the matter before the Court. It is clear from such provisions contained in Act 45/87 that the said Act was subsequently enacted only with a view to extend and continue the benefits of Act 7/71 which was enacted only to cover the debts that were in existence by the date of coming into force of the said Act and as it docs not, therefore, apply to the debts which came into existence subsequent to the coming into force of the said Act. It is also to be seen in this connection that various provisions contained in Act 7/77 including the definitions and other provisions enacted for conferring the benefits on the small farmers etc., are not re-enacted in Act 45/87 and on the other hand, it is specifically mentioned in Act 45/87, as already stated above, that it was enacted only with a view to make applicable all the provisions contained in Act 7/77 for the debts incurred during the period between 29-12-1976 and 31-5-1989. Act 7/77 was not repealed by Act 45/87 and Act 7/77 continues to be in force and will apply for the debts incurred even subsequent to 29-12-1976 in view of the enactment of Act 45/87. In the present case, the suit pronote came into existence on 15-6-1978 and such, Act 7/77 will apply to this case in view of the enactment of Act 45/87 by which the benefits of Act 7/77 were made applicable to the debts that came into existence even subsequent to 29-12-1976. Under such circumstances, the lower Court has erred in rejecting the plea of the petitioner claiming the benefits of a small farmer on the preliminary ground that the debt was not in existence by the date of coming into force of Act 7/77 and as such, the said Act is not applicable.

The lower Court has also erred in observing that the petitioner has not chosen to claim the benefits of Act 45/87 and as such, the extended benefits cannot be conferred upon him. This view also is clearly erroneous. As already stated above, Act 45/87 is not a self-contained Act containing all the provisions which are enumerated in Act 7/77 and the said Act was enacted only with a view to extend the benefits of Act 7/77 even for the debts that came into existence subsequent to 29-12-1976. Therefore, the benefits of Act 7/77 will continue to apply even for the debts that came into existence subsequent to 29-12-1976 in view of Act 45/87 and the petitioner cannot be denied such benefits if he is otherwise entitled for the same on the ground that he did not quote Act 145 /87 in his counter. The orders of the lower Court are, therefore, erroneous and illegal and are liable to be set aside.

In view of such preliminary finding given in its order, the lower Court did not go into the merits of the case to decide the question whether the petitioner who is the Judgment-Debtor is a small farmer and is entitled to claim such benefits under Act 7/77. Such orders of the lower Court are, therefore, liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded for fresh disposal on merits according to law.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the orders of the lower Court rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the benefits under Act 7/77 as a small farmer are set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Court for fresh disposal according to law on merits after giving opportunity to both sides on the basis of the evidence already on record and after giving opportunity to adduce further evidence if any, regarding the claim of the petitioner for benefits as a small farmer.