The main legal point established is that for a person to be considered a rural artisan under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, their principal means of livelihood must be related to agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto.

( 1 ) IN this case the judgment-debtor is the petitioner. He claims that the debt gets extinguished by operation of Section 4 of the andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 7 of 1977, herein after referred to as the act Admittedly he is a mason and the lower court has held that he does not come within the definition of Section 3 (r) of the Act, In this Revision Sri T. S. Harinath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the view of the lower court is incorrect and it requires a revision by this court. To appreciate this contention it is necessary to extract Section 3 (r) of the Act which reads as under. "rural artisan, means a person who does not hold any agricultural land and whose principal means of livelihood is production or repair of tradition tools, implements and other articles or things used for agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto, and includes a person who normally earns his livlihood by practising a craft either by his own labour or by the labour of all or any of the members of his family in rural area. "

( 2 ) A reading of the above provision clearly indicates that the rural artisan is a person (1) who does not hold any agricultural land and (2) whose principal means of livelihood is production or repair of traditional tools, implements or other articles or things used for agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto. Masonry work is admittedly construction of the building and his employment as a mason is not for agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto. Therefore, he cannot come within the definition or rural artisan and he does not get the advantages of the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Act. Accordingly I hold that the petitioner is not a rural artisan inasmuch as he cannot come within the definition of small farmer and therefore he is not entitled to the benefits of Section 4 of the Act 7 of 1977. In these circumstances the view of the lower court is perfectly legal and it does not warrant interference in revision.

( 3 ) ACCORDINGLY the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.