( 1 ) PETITIONER is the judgment- debtor. In the execution, he pleaded that he is a small farmer, eatiiled to the benefit of the provision of section 4 of Act VII of 1977. On negation by the executing court, he present revision has been filed.

( 2 ) IT is contended by the petitioner that he is a small farmer and the respondent himself has admitted in the promissory note executed by the petitioner that the loan was obtained not only for agricultural purposes but also for discharge of the sundry debts and family expenses. Therefore it could be taken that the loan is taken for agricultural purpose, it is also contended that the respondent when examined as P. W. 1 did not even state that the petitioner is having more than five acres of land and therefore he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, Sri Poornaiah learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner himself when examined as R. W. 1 admitted in his cross-examination thus: "for fertilizers supplied to me he got the promote obtained from me. I do not know when he stopped the business. Five acres are required for 1000 rupees medicines", (obviously it is a mistake for manure .) From this he contends that when the debt was incurred for the purpose of purchasing fertilizers, the debt get excepted under clause (viii) of section 3 (i) of the act, which reads thus:"any debt which represents the price of any goods or property whether movable or immovable purchased by a debtor or any amount due under a hire-purchase agreement "he also further contends that when the petitioner admists that he purchased fertilizers for being applied for five acres in his cross-examination, it goes to show that the petitioner is possessed of five acres. If that be so, he cannot come within the definition of small farmer defined under section 3 (t) of the Act.

( 4 ) SRI Sastry, in reply contends that the admission is only an improper admission made because of his old age and therefore it cannot be taken into account.

( 5 ) UPON the respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is whether the debt gets excepted from the operation of section 4 of the Act. Under section 3 (i) (viii) the Legislature excepted any debt which represents the price of any goods or property whether moveable or immoveable purchased by a debtor or any amount due under a hire purchase agreement from the operation of section 4 of the Act.

( 6 ) IT is well settled that admission made by the parties are conclusive unless the party explains in his evidence: (see Ramji Dayawwla and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import, (1981) 1 s. C. C 80 : (1981) 1 S. C. R. 899 : A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 2085. In this case, no explanation is offered. Therefore the admission is conclusive and binding on the petitioner, when the petitioner has admitted that he incurred the debt under the promissory note for the supply of fertilizers made by the respondent s husband, it squarely comes, within the excepted debts under clause (viii) of section 3 (i ). Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act. Even otherwise also when he admitted that he purchased the fertilizers which were sufficient for five acres, it obviously goes to establish that he is possessed of at least five acres. The promissary note was executed for Rs. 1,000. 00 and in the earlier admission it was stated that the pronote was executed for supply of fertilizers. If all these admissions are put together, it establishes that the petitioner is possessed of at least five acres, if not more; If that be so he cannot become a small farmer within the meaning of section 3 (t) of the Act. On this ground, he is not entitled to the benefit of Act VII of 1977. Accordingly, the view of the lower Court is correct and the civil revision petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Revision petition dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document