The expression and in the definition of small farmer in section 3 (t) of the A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Ordinance, 1976 should be read disjunctively as or to further the object of the Ordinance and the entire legal system.

( 1 ) THIS revision by the Judgment-debtors under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the decision rendered by the learned First Additional District Munsif, Eluru, dated 28th day of February 1977 by which the application filed by the petitioners under Sec. 4 sub-sees. (1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural indebtedness (Relief) Ordinance 25 of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as merely the Ordinance) was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE first petitioner is the wife, the 2nd petitioner is the minor son and the third petitioner is the minor daughter of late dharma Rao. Late Dharmarao borrowed from the respondent an amount of Rs. ,2000/- on 19th of July 1969. After his death the respondent filed the suit O. S. 639 of 1972 against the petitioners and one by name Satyanarayana, the major son of late Dharma Rao seeking the recovery of the debt from out of the assets of late Dharmarao in the petitioner s hands. That suit was decreed for a sum of rs. 2,330/- on January 31, 1972 with costs and subsequent interest.

( 3 ) THE respondents sought to execute the decree in E. P. 294 of 1975; but that was stayed in I. A. 1149 of 1975 under the proviisons of A. P. Ordinance 8 of 1975. Subsequently it was vacated and the respondents were allowed to proceed with the execution of the decree. An amount of Rs. 2,590/-was paid under E. P. 294of 1975 and a balance of Rs. 777-30 paise besides costs of execution and pleader s fee is still due.

( 4 ) THE Governor of Andhra Pradesh promulgated the A. P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Ordinance 25 of 1976 providing for the grant of relief from indebtedness from persons mentioned therein and providing for abatement of all pending proceedings including execution proceedings.

( 5 ) BY the date of the aforesaid ordinance E. P. 294 of 1975 filed by the respondents against the petitioners for execution by attachment and sale of property was pending. It is under those circumstances the petitioners filed E. A. 59 of 1977 on 20th of January 1977 under Sec. 4, sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Ordinance seeking a declaration that the decree debt stood discharged.

( 6 ) THE respondents filed a counter resisting the claim of the petitioners stating inter alia that the debt was a family debt and that an extent of Ac. 2. 75 cents was the joint family property which was above one hectare and that the petitioners were not personally cultivating the lands. Therefore they are not entitled to claim the benefit of the Ordinance as small farmers and seek a declaration that the debt stood discharged.

( 7 ) THE learned District Munsif held on 28th February 1977 that the petitioners were the debtors and the extant owned by them was less than 1 hectare. But on the ground that the petitioners were not personally cultivating the land owned by them the court below held that the petitioners do not answer the description of small farmer with the result that the application was dismissed. This revision petition is directed against that decision.

( 8 ) SRI N. V. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the court below having held that the petitioners are debtors, they owned less than one hectare of land and that their principal means of livelihood is agricultural income derived from the land, erred in holding that the petitioners are not small farmers as they were not personally cultivating their lands. This finding of the court below is opposed to Art. 46 of the Constitution read with the preamble, object and policy of the Ordinance.

( 9 ) SRI Veerabhadraiah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners were considered to be debtors owning less than one hectare of land, their principal means of livelihood being agricultural income, still they are unable to satisfy that they were personally cultivating the lands and that would disentitle them from claiming the relief under the Ordinance as