( 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 benefit under Act 7 of 1977, should be a small farmer not only on the date when the debt was incurred but also on the date when the Act came into force. The petitioner is not a small farmer on both the occasions and therefore he is not entitled to the benefits of Act 7 of 1977. He relied on S. Narayana Appalanaidu vs. T. Latchanna (1 ). AIR 1971 A. P. 174. Even otherwise, the lower court is well justified in giving the finding that the decree in execution is not a debt as defined under section 3 (i) of the Act. He relied on K. Visweswara Vs. K. Krishnamurthi (2 ). AIR 1957 A. P. 337.

( 3 ) IN view of these relative contentions, it is necessary to find out whether the petitioner is a small farmer and if so, the decree in execution is a debt as defined under section 3 (i) of the Act. The undisputed facts, in brief are: The petitioner and the respondent are admittedly partners in a firm and the respondent laid the action in the suit to dissolve the partnership and a consequence thereof, sought relief of rendition of accounts. The lower Court decreed the suit and an account was taken and passed a final decree directing the petitioner to pay a certain sum now found due and payable towards the share of the respondent. For execution thereof, the present execution petition has been laid which the petitioner is seekinr- to get a declaration to be abated as per section 4 (2) (b) of the Act.

( 4 ) THE Andhra Pradesh Agricultural indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (Act VII of 1977) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been passed in implementation of the directives contained in Article 46 of the constitution which enjoins upon the State to promote with special care "the economic interests of the weaker sections of the people" and in particular of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes and "to protect them from social injustice and also all forms of exploitation. Its aims and objectives have been adumbrated thus:"the State Government have been viewing with great concern the exploitation of weaker sections of the community by unscrupulous money lenders and landlords. The existing laws on the subject of "debt relief" had to a certain extent saved from exploitation, such communities which are placed in economically disadvantageous position. As the feeling in the public was growing that these laws are not enough, the Prime Minister in announcing 20-Point Economic Programme included "plan for liquidation of rural indebtedness, legislation for moratorium on recovery of debts from landless labourers, small farmers and artisans" to be one of the most important points thereof. . . . . . In furtherance of the above plan, the Government decided to give a more substantial and permanent relief by liquidating the indebtedness of the agricultural labourers, rural artisans, and