Petiti Nageswaramma vs Neelapala Venkateswarulu And Ors.

1. Petiti Nageswaramma, plaintiff in OS No. 128 of 1974 before the District Munsif 's Court, Kaikalur, is the appellant herein. The defendants in the suit are the respondents. The suit was filed for realisation of an amount of Rs 8140.42 due under a registered mortgage deed executed by Defendants 1 to 4, the respondents herein. The trial court held that the suit is not maintainable. In appeal, the learned District Judge decreed the suit. In second appeal by Defendants 1 to 4, a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed the decree and the judgment of the lower appellate court and restored the decree and judgment of the trial court. That is why the plaintiff in the suit has filed this appeal by special leave.

2. It is common ground that Defendants 1 to 4 executed a document labelled "gift" in favour of the 5th defendant. The lower appellate court held that the said deed was valid and came into effect. The High Court on the basis of the evidence especially of PW 6, Vadavalli Venkateswara Rao, Village Karnam, held that the document "gift deed" was a nominal one, it was not accepted by Defendant 5 and so it did not come into effect. The High Court found that the property belonged to Defendants 1 to 4 and they were in possession. The lower appellate court had in para 11 of the judgment, found that Defendants 1 to 4 had no other land. On the plaintiff's own showing, as averred in the plaint, Defendants 1 to 4 are agriculturists and the property subject to the mortgage is 4.81 acres of dry land.

3. The only plea before us was that the gift deed came into existence, Defendants 1 to 4 are not in possession and the 5th defendant is not an agriculturist or a smallholder entitled to the benefit of the Andhra Pradesh

Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (the Act) as rightly held by the lower appellate court and the suit should be decreed. The crucial question to be decided in this case is as to who is the owner in possession of the property in dispute. The High Court has found on the basis of the clinching evidence provided by PW 6, Village Karnam, that Defendants 1 to 4 own the land; they are in possession and have raised a house on it and are also raising crops in the land. The property belongs to Defendants 1 to 4. On the basis of this finding, coupled with the finding of the lower appellate court that Defendants 1 to 4 did not possess any other land, the conclusion of the High Court is unassailable, that the defendants are small farmers as provided by Section 3(f)(i) of the Act. Thus, the sole plea raised before us fails and the appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

4. No costs.