( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is the judgement - debtor in O. S. 558 of 1973, Principal District Munsifs Court, Narsapur. She filed a petition under S. 4 (2) (a) of the A. P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, (Act No. 7 of 1977) referred to in this judgment as the Act contending that she is a small farmer and that she in entitled to a declaration that the decree debt shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. She claimed that she was possessed of 1 acre out of 4 acres. 95 cents in R. S. No. 239 and she had no other income. This application was opposed on the ground that the petitioners husband was doing business in rice and was earning more than Rs. 8000. 00 per annum and hence the petitioner is not a small farmer within the meaning of Act 7 of 1977. The learned District Muncie after considering the evidence adduced in the case held that the petitioners husband was getting an annual income of RS. 5000. 00 or RS. 6000. 00. He therefore held that though the petitioner was entitled only to 1 acre of land, the application has to be rejected as her husbands income was more than RS. 5000. 00. In the result he dismissed the petition with costs.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in the lower Court filed the present revision-petition challenging the correctness of the said order. When it came before Divan Reedy. J. he directed this revision-petition to be posted before a Full Bench as he was of the view that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S. Laxamana Rao. DC Papaya Raja (1980) 1 APPLE 228; (AIR 1980 And PRA 191) is not correct.

( 3 ) SECTION 4 of the Act provides that every debt, including interest, if any, owing to any creditor by an agricultural labourer a rural artisan or a small farmer shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. The Petitioner claims that she is a small farmer within the meaning of S. 3 (t), which is as follows;"3. (T) small farmer means a person whose principal means of livelihood is income derived from agricultural land and who cultivates as a tenant or sharecropper or mortgagee with possession, agricultural land which does not exceed in extent;- (i) in the case of persons other than the members of the Scheduled Tribes, one hectare, if it is wet, or two hectares. if it is dry; (ii) in the case of the members of the Scheduled Tribes, two hectares, if it is wet, or four hectares, if it is dry but does not include any person whose annual household income, other than from agriculture exceeds one thousand and two hundred rupees in any two years within three years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act. Explanation;- For the purposes of computing the extent of land under this clause, one hectare of wet land shall be deemed to be equal to two hectares of dry land; The petition does not belong to any Scheduled Tribe. Hence her case is covered by Sec. 3 (t) (I ). Her case is that as the agricultural land which she holds, does not exceed one hectare off wet land she is a small farmer within the meaning of Sec. 3 (t) (I ). The learned District Munsif however held that she cannot be considered to be a small farmer in view of the last part of the definition viz, "but does not include any person whose annual household income, other than from agriculture exceeds one thousand and two hundred rupees in any two years within three years immediately preceding commencement of this Act. The expression annual household income is defined in Sec. 3 (d) as meaning the aggregate of the annual income from all sources of all the members of a family. Family is defined under Sec. 3 (1), in relation to a person, as meaning the individual, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such individual and their unmarried minor children. Person is defined in Sec. 3 (p ). as meaning an individual or a family. On a reading of Sec. 3 (d), 3 (1) and 3 (p) along with the last part of Sec. 3 (t) of the Act, it would follow that if the annual income from all sources of all the members of the family other than from agricultu