( 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 small farmer eligible to the benefits under Act 7 of 1977 and in this view the suits are dismissed.

( 2 ) THE learned cousel for the petitioners confined himself to the contention that a special connotation is given to the "creditor" under Act 7 of 1977 by defining the same and the debt due to such creditor only is deemed to be discharged and the plaintiff the holder in due course cannot be considered as a creditor within the meaning of the Act and as such the defendant is not eligible for the benefits under the Act. The learned counsel for the respondent advanced two-fold cententions namely that the benefit is available provided the requirements of debt and debtor are satisfied without reference to the creditor and in any event the holder in due course is within the ambit of the creditor postulated in the Act.

( 3 ) SECTION 4 of Act 7 of 1977 provides that every debt due by a small farmer to any creditor shall stand discharged subject to the provisions contained in the Act. This is a three-dimension position prescribing occupational qualification for the claimant from whom tho debt is due to a creditor. All the three expressions namely small farmer, debt and creditor take colour from the connotations given under the Act and the consideration for eligibility to relief is circumscribed by the width of the said expressions. The creditor is defined in Section 3 (h) as follows:"creditor" means a person from or in respect of whom the debtor has barrowed or incurred a debt and includes heirs, legal representatives and assigns;"debt to the extent relevant is defined under Section 3 (i) as follows:"debt" includes any liability owing to a creditor in cash or in kind, whether secured or unsecured payable under a decree or order of a Civil Court or otherwise and subsisting at the commencement of this Act, but does not include. "the debtor is defined under Sec. 3 (j) as follows;"debtor" means an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer, who has borrowed or incurred any debt before the commencement of this Act". The initial contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the occupational qualification coupled with ingridients of debt as provided under the Act is sufficient for obtaining benefit is not sustainable as the third requisite namely the amount due to a creditor as defined under the Act is also imperative. Reverting to the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners it has to be considered whether holder in due course is a creditor. The definition of the creditor in Section 3 (h) comprises three aspects namely the privity with reference to the borrowal by the debtor from the creditor, accrual of the liability other than through actual borrowal and extension to hoirs, legal representatives and assignees. The le