( 1 ) THE petitioner is the judgement -debtor. The matter arises in execution. When an application was laid for execution of the decree in O. S. 26/71, the petitioner raised a plea that he is a small farmer, entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Act 7 of 1977. The lower Court, after adduction of evidence and consideration of the material placed before it, held that the petitioner is a small farmer, but negatived the relief on the footing that the debt, the subject matter of the execution is not a "debt" as defined under Section 3 (i) of the act.

( 2 ) IN this revision, Sri Venkataramanayy, learned cousel for the petitioner contended that the view of the lower Court is obviously illegal and the learned Subordinate Judge, did not consider the scope and ambit of the word "debt" and the exclusion adumbrated under Clause (v) thereof does not encompass the decree in question. Therefore, the lower Court exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that the decree in execution is not a debt as contemplated under section 3 (i) of the Act. Sri Ramarao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner, in order to avail himself of the benef