Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : T.NARSINGA RAO
KASARANENI KUTUMBA RAO - Appellant
Versus
KAKARLA BASAVA PURNAMMA - Respondent
Decided On : 11-07-78
AGRICULTURAL INDEBTEDNESS RELIEF - DISCHARGE OF DEBTS - SMALL FARMER - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 4 OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH AGRICULTURAL INDEBTEDNESS (RELIEF) ACT, 1977 - APPLICABILITY TO INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS - DEFINITION OF FAMILY - INCLUSION OF SHARE OF MINOR SON - ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - COMPUTATION OF LAND HOLDING.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a small farmer, filed an insolvency petition under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (Act 7 of 1977), seeking discharge of his debt. The creditor-respondent opposed the petition, claiming that the petitioner was not a small farmer and owned more than the prescribed limit of one hectare of wet land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of Section 4 of Act 7 of 1977 are attracted to insolvency proceedings, as the debt owed by a small farmer to a creditor stands discharged by virtue of this provision, and there is no more any relationship of debtor and creditor. The court further held that the petitioner was a small farmer within the definition of Section 3 (i) of the Act, as his holding, including his wife's share, was less than one hectare of wet land, after excluding the share of his fourth son, who was a major at the time of the commencement of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 are attracted to insolvency proceedings? 2. Whether the petitioner is a small farmer within the meaning of Section 3 (i) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977, and held that it applies to insolvency proceedings, as the discharge of debt under the Act terminates the relationship of debtor and creditor, and thus, the creditor cannot maintain an insolvency petition based on a debt that has been discharged. 2. The court held that the petitioner was a small farmer, as his holding, including his wife's share, was less than one hectare of wet land, after excluding the share of his fourth son, who was a major at the time of the commencement of the Act. The court relied on the definition of family in Section 3 (1) of the Act, which includes the wife and unmarried minor children, and held that the share of the minor son cannot be included in the holding of the family.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the trial court, and held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of the Act, as the debt in relation to which the insolvency proceeding arose was liable to be abated.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional subordinate Judge, Vijayawada whereby he refused to extend the benefits of Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act. (Act 7 of 1977) to the revision petitioner, in an insolvency proceeding.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner was that he is a small farmer within the meaning of Section 3 (I) of the Act and therefore, the debt, on account of which the insolvency proceeding, i. e. , I. P. No. 48/74 arises, must be deemed to have been discharged. It is further alleged that the creditor cannot c. R. P. NO. 6288/78 Dt 28-6-1979 r.--45 recover the debt due under the pronote that the petitioner has got four major sons and the family has got Ac. 4-44 cents of wet and dry land, that the share of the petitioner would be only Ac. 0-89 cents and that the wife of the petitioner has got Ac. 1-00 of land. Hence, the petitioner is a small farmer owning lees than one hectare of wet land.
( 3 ) THE creditor-respondent resisted this petition on the ground that the petitioner is not a small farmer and that he owns Ac. 4-50 cents of wet land and Ac. 3-50 cents of dry land and the property is worth more than rs. 1,50,000/ -. It is also alleged that the wife of the petitioner owns some land. The further averment is that before filing this I. P. , the petitioner collusively brought into existence a sale-deed purporting to have sold Ac. 0-93 cents of wet land. The I. P. was filed treating the said sale as an act of insolvency. Subsequent to the filing of the I. P. , the petitioner is said to have brought into existence another sale-deed purporting to sell Act. 1-50 cents of dry land. Therefore, the two items of land sold under the above sale-deed have to be included in the holding of the petitioner and thus, he is not a small farmer.
( 4 ) THE respondent did not adduce any oral evidence. The petitioner examined himself as P. W. I.
( 5 ) EVEN on the basis of the evidence of P. W. I, it was held that the 4th son of the petitioner is still a minor and that the wife of the petitioner also owns Ac. 1-00 of land and thus the petitioner and the share of his sob, together with the land held by his wife would exceed the prescribed limit of one hectare of wet land and therefore, the petitioner is not a small farmer. The learned Subordinate Judge also held that the petitioner has not proved that his fourth son has attained majority and under the definition of family , the share of the minor son has to be included in computing the land held by the petitioner. For that purpose, the learned Subordinate judge relied upon the description of the fourth son as a minor in a sale-deed dated 14-5-1975. The learned Subordinate Judge also held that the petitioner has not proved by filing any extract of birth register or other documentary evidence to prove that his fourth son had attained majority and in view of the description in the sale-deed as aforesaid, he treated the fourth son as a minor and held that his share has to be included in the holding of the petitioner. In short, be held that the petitioner was not a small farmer. The learned Subordinate Judge also held that the insolvency proceeding is not a proceeding for the recovery of a debt and as such, the provisions of section 4 of Act 7 of 1977 has no application to am insolvency proceeding.
( 6 ) AT the outset, it is to be seen whether the provisions of Act 7 of 1977 are attracted to a proceeding in insolvency. In order to decide this question, it is necessary to read Section 4 of the Act so far it is necessary for our purpose. It reads;"4. Discharge of debts and relief to debtors: (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (Act 4 of 1938), the Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 F. (Act 5 of 1349 F.) the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Pawn Brokers Act, 1943 (Act 23 of 1943 ). the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) agricultur
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
