( 1 ) THESE revision petitions arise out of the suits filed in SC. Nos. 41 of 1978 and 129 of 1977 for recovery of the amounts. The father of the defendant borrowed the amounts on promissory notes from the plaintiff s transferor. The plaintiff is the holder in due course for consideration consequent upon transfer of pronotes in her favour and as the defandant failed to pay the amounts the suits were filed. The plea in the written statements in both the suits is identical. It is stated that the pronotes are forged and they are not supported by consideration and in any event the plaintiff is a small farmer owning Ac. 0-50 of wetland and eligible for benefits under A. P. Agricultural indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (7 of l977) and as such the debts must be deemed to have been discharged. The plaintiff also claimed that she is a small farmer and as such the defendant is precluded from claiming the benefits c. R. P. 3076 and 3077 of 1980 Dt. 7-10-1983 under the Act. The Court below held that prouotes are true and the plaintiff is a bonafide holder in due course for valuable consideration. It is further held that the plaintiff is not a small farmer and the defendant is a smal