The presumption under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors Liquidation of Debts Act, 1976 that a debtor is a scheduled debtor when a certificate under Section 5 is produced is not an unrebuttable presumption and can be rebutted by evidence.

1. - This revision-petition is directed against the order dated May 14, 1990, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanchore, by which the learned Munsif rejected the objections filed by the judgment-debtor and directed that the decretal amount can be recovered from the judgment-debtor only to the extent he inherited the property of his father i.e., 30 Bigha 15 Biswas of land.

2. Decree-holders Sanwal Chand and others, on April 9, 1984, filed an application for the execution of the decree in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanchore. The judgment-debtor Birda contested the application and filed objections.It was stated in the application that he is the marginal farmer and it is a year of drought and the execution of the decree may be suspended and some time may be granted to him for filing a certificate that he is a marginal farmer. He thereafter filed the certificate issued by the Tehsildar (Land Records), Sanchore. It was certified by the Tehsildar that Birda S/o. Dharma is a marginal farmer as defined under the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors Liquidation of Debts Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The decree-holders, in support of their case, examined DHW 1 Sanwal Chand, DHW 2 Bhanwar Lal and DHW 3 Bhagirath. The judgment-debtor, in support of his case, examined himself as JDW 1. The learned Munsif, after considering the evidence produced by both the parties on record, rejected the objection filed by the judgment-debtor and ordered for the recovery of the amount in the execution of the decree only to the extent of the value of the property which he inherited from his father. It is against this order that the present revision-petition has been filed by the plaintiff.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgment-debtor filed the certificate issued by the competent authority showing the petitioner as the marginal farmer under the Act and, therefore, the presumption should have been drawn in his favour that he is a scheduled debtor and the burden of proving to the contrary shall lie on the creditor, while in the present case the learned lower Court has not drawn such presumption and placed the burden on the petitioner to show that he is a scheduled debtor. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while deciding the question of the execution of the decree, the learned lower Court should have considered the case of the petitioner that he is a scheduled debtor and not the case of the petitioner's father because the decree is being executed against the petitioner. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned lower Court has misread the evidence on record and arrived at a wrong finding. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the legal representatives of the deceased are liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to their hand and not beyond that. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the right of a tenant in agricultural holding is not liable to be seized, attached or sold by process of any civil Court and the learned lower Court committed an error in directing for the execution of the decree against the agricultural land of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the decree-holders, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned lower Court.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.The first point, which requires consideration is whether the learned Munsif was justified in not treating the petitioner as the marginal farmer and what will be the effect of the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 in the case of the petitioner? It is not in dispute, as is clear fr