Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Syed Ghori Khaleel Basha vs Podamekala Kondaiah on 20 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(6)ALT373, 2001 A I H C 4950, (2001) 2 ANDHWR 470 (2001) 6 ANDH LT 373, (2001) 6 ANDH LT 373, 2002 A I H C 4950
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
ORDER S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 31-3-1998 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kavali in E.P. No. 15 of 1994.
2. The decreeholder is the petitioner. He filed the aforementioned Execution Petition for executing the decree passed in his favour in O.S.No. 256 of 1986. The decree-holder filed an application under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 read with Section 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for the sake of brevity) praying for arrest of the respondent/ judgment-debtor for realisation of the decretal amount, inter alia, on the ground that the judgment-debtor has an annual income Rs. 50,000/- and also cash of Rs. 50,000/-. A counter was filed by the respondent/judgment-debtor denying and disputing the aforementioned allegations and he stated that he is merely in possession of Ac. 1-66 cents of dry land in Konda Bitragunta, which he had been cultivating personally for the purpose eking out his livelihood. It was categorically stated that he has no other property. He denied and disputed that he had taken up any contract work at all.
3. Before the learned Court below, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1. Two documents, viz., Exs. A-1 and A-2 were brought on record. The judgment-debtor examined himself wherein he supported his contention raised in his objection petition.
4. The only question, which arose for consideration before the learned Court below, was as to whether the judgment-debtor is a small farmer and is entitled to the benefit of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Amendment Act, 1990.
5 The State of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977, being Act No. 7 of 1977, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1977 Act" for brevity) with a view to provide relief from indebtedness to agricultural labourers, rural artisans and small farmers in the State of Andhra Pradesh and for matters connected therewith. The 1977 Act contains a declaration to the effect that the same was enacted for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in Article 46 of the Constitution.
6. Section 2 (i) of the 1977 Act, which defines 'debt', reads as under:
"debt includes any liability owing to a creditor in cash or in kind, whether secured or unsecured, payable under a decree or order of a civil Court otherwise and subsisting at the commencement of this Act, but does not include;
(i) a debt due to the Central Government or any State Government or any local authority or a co-operative society or a bank, including arrears of taxes due to the Central Government or a State Government, or a local authority;
(ii) a debt due to any Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956;
(iii) a debt to the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, or to any other Corporation established by or under any law for the time being in force and owned or controlled by the Central Government or any State Government;
(iv) any rent due in respect of any property including an agricultural land let out to a debtor;
(v) any liability arising out of breach trust or any tortuous liability;
(vi) any liability in respect of wages or remuneration due salary or otherwise for services rendered;
(vii) any liability in respect of maintenance whether under a decree of a civil Court or otherwise;
(viii) any debt which represents the price of any goods or property whether movable or immovable purchased by a debtor or amount due under a hire-purchase agreement;
(ix) any advance of money given to debtor by a person as the price of goods or properly to be sold later on by the debtor;
(x) any sum recoverable as arrears of land revenue;
(xi) any sum payable to any religious, charitable or educational institution including wakf of public nature;
(xii) any debt contracted by a debtor from a person who is an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer";
7. Section 2 (j), which defines 'debtor', reads thus:
"debtor means an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer, who has borrowed or incurred any debt before the commencement of this Act".
8. Section 4 of the 1977 Act reads thus:
"(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 F., the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Pawnbrokers Act, 1943, the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act, 1956, the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Area) Money Lenders Regulation, 1960, the Andhra Pradesh Indebted Agriculturists, Landless Labourers and Artisans (Temporary Relief) Act, 1976 or any law for the time being in force, or any contract or other instrument having the force of law with effect on and from the commencement of this Act, 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.
(2) (a) No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or other proceeding against the debtor for the recovery of any amount of the debt, including interest, if any, which is deemed to be discharged under Sub-sections (1):
Provided that where any suit or other proceeding is instituted jointly against the debtor and any other person, nothing in this sub-section shall apply to the maintainability of such suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to such other person.
(b) All suits and other proceedings including appeals, revisions, attachments or execution proceeding pending at the commencement of this Act, against any debtor for the recovery of any such debt, including interest, if any shall abate:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the sale, in respect of any such debt, of -
(i) any movable property held and concluded before commencement of this Act.
(ii) any immovable property confirmed before such commencement.
(c) Every debtor undergoing detention in a civil prison in execution of any decree for money passed against him by a Civil Court in respect of any such debt, including interest if any, shall be released.
(3) (a) Every movable property pledged by a debtor whose debt is deemed to be discharged under Sub-sections (1), shall stand released in favour of such debtor and the creditor shall be bound to deliver the same to the debtor forthwith.
(b) Every mortgage executed by such debtor in favour of the creditor shall stand redeemed and the mortgaged property shall be released in favour of such debtor.
Explanation:- Nothing in this section shall be construed as entitling any debtor for refund of any part of any debt repaid or interest paid already by him or recovered from him before such commencement of this Act."
9. In 1987, a similar Act viz., the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1987 Act" for brevity) was enacted.
10. The State thereafter enacted A.P. Agricultural (Amendment) Act, 1990, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1990 Act for brevity) whereby and whereunder the 1987 Act was amended. By reason of the provisions of the Act "31-5-1989" was to be substituted in place of "the date of such commencement" as contained in Sub-sections (1) and (2) (b) of Section 3 of the 1987 Act.
11. It is not in dispute that in the event it be held that the judgment-debtor is a small farmer, the execution petition would not be maintainable. The learned Executing Court upon appreciation of the evidence brought before it came to the conclusion that as the judgment-debtor was a small farmer, he is entitled to the benefit of the said Act and thus the debt would be deemed to have been discharged.
12. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that initially the onus was upon the judgment-debtor to prove that he was a small farmer. He would contend that the learned Court below acted illegally in so far as it failed to take into consideration two documents filed by the petitioner.
13. The executing Court has analysed the evidence brought on record by the parties. It took into consideration all the documents. The learned executing Court pointed out that once the initial burden is discharged, it was for the decreeholder to show that the judgment-debtor has withheld some documents. He could further show that the judgment-debtor had more land. Learned executing Court has rejected the contention of the petitioner on the ground that no documentary evidence had been produced before it. So far as Ex.A-2 is concerned, it shows that Ac. 48.88 cents of land stands in the name of P. Ramaiah and K. Venkateshwarlu son of Kotaiah but held that it is not clear therefrom as to how much land each one of them was holding. It was noticed that several numbers in the said document had been rounded off in red ink in relation whereto there was no proper explanation.
14. In the aforementioned situation, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be said that the finding of fact arrived at by the learned executing Court was based on irrelevant or extraneous consideration or the same has not been based on relevant factors germane for determining the issue.
15. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code is limited. This Court can interfere with an order passed by the Court only when a jurisdictional error has been committed. The finding of fact cannot be assailed in a civil revision application. A wrong decision on a question of law may not also be a subject matter of revision, unless it touches the jurisdiction of the Court. For the purpose of determining as to whether a jurisdictional error has been committed, the petitioner must be able to show that relevant factors had not been taken into consideration or the decision is based on irrelevant factors not germane for the purpose of determining the issues before it.
16. In Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad, AIR 1979 SC 76 the law has been laid down in the following terms:
"In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate Court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate Court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate Court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law, or may not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate Court exercises its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code."
17. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no case has been made out for exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
18. Before parting with this case, we may notice that the learned Single Judge by an order dated 15-6-2001 directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bogolu to enquire and submit a report with regard to extent of land held by the respondent in his own village and the total income derived by him. Such a direction was issued as a doubt was entertained as to whether the respondent is a small farmer or not. We are of the opinion that ordinarily such a course of action should not be taken recourse to while exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, inasmuch as this Court cannot determine an issue touching the merit of the matter on the basis of a report, correctness or otherwise whereof may be questioned. In any event, it is not for the Court to collect additional evidence for the parties.
19. For the reasons aforementioned, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.