THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.296 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.4 of 1991 in the Court of the I Additional District Munsif, Madanapalle against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,017/- with interest on the strength of a promissory note, dated 05.01.1988, marked as Ex.A1. The respondent filed written statement admitting the execution of Ex.A1, but stating that the loan was discharged through a receipt, dated 05.01.1989, marked as Ex.B1. He has also taken the plea that he is a small farmer and the suit is barred against him in view of the provisions contained in A.P. Act No.2 of 1977 as amended through Act 2 of 1990. The trial Court decreed the suit on 16.03.1993. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed A.S.No.86 of 1998 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The appeal was allowed on 26.11.1998. Hence, this second appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the respondent pleaded discharge, he has failed to prove the same and that the plea that he is a small farmer stood rebutted through unimpeachable evidence adduced by the appellant. He contends that the lower appellate Court erred in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client discharged the debt, which was proved by filing Ex.B1 and examining the attestor thereof. It is also urged that the plea of small farmer raised by him was not at all disproved by the appellant. The appellant filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,017/-. The respondent admitted the factum of borrowing the amount, but took the plea of discharge, apart from being a small farmer. The trial Court framed the issues, touching on these two aspects. The appellant deposed as P.W.2 and the Revenue Inspector of the area was examined as P.W.1. He marked Ex.A1, promissory note, Ex.A2, certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer pointing out the extent said to have been owned by the respondent and Ex.A3, a certified copy of the petition and orders in O.S.No.297 of 1979 filed by the respondent herein. On his part, the respondent examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and filed Exs.B1 to B3. Ex.X1, a copy of 2-A Register of Vempalle Village was also taken on record. The trial Court discarded Ex.B1, the discharge receipt, on the ground that he did not take back Ex.A1 even after the alleged discharge. It was observed that there is a recital in Ex.B1 to the effect that the original promissory note was returned and if that were to be so, there was no occasion for Ex.A1 to be with the appellant. The plea of small farmer was also negatived on the basis of Exs.A2 and A3. The lower appellate Court re-examined the findings on both the issues. So far as Ex.B1 is concerned, it held that the appellant did not even dispute the existence of the same, so much so, he did not file rejoinder and there is nothing impeachable in the evidence of D.W.2, the attestor of Ex.B1. As regards the plea of small farmer, the lower appellate Court took the view that even if the extents, which the appellant pleaded that the respondent hold, are taken together, they do not exceed the holding mentioned in the Act referred to above. These findings are pure questions of fact and this Court does not find any substantial question of law warranting interference with the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.07.2010 kdl