THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR S.A.Nos.197 & 546 of 1999 Date: 30.7.2010 Between: Hanumakka and others. ………..Appellants And Nagaraju (died) and others. ………..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR S.A.Nos.197 & 546 of 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both these appeals arise out of the one and same suit, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment. The original plaintiff filed the suit for partition in O.S.No.207 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Anantapur. Since he died without leaving any legal heirs, D-4 was transposed as plaintiff. D-1 is the father of D-4 to D-7. D-1 alienated certain lands in S.Nos.102 and 103 in favour of D-2 and S.Nos.184-I, 183 and 182 in favour of D-3 and S.No.204 of Ipperu Revenue in favour of D-8. D-2 died during the pendency of the suit. D-9 to D-14 have come on record as the L.R.s of D-2. The trial Court decreed the suit except in respect of the lands sold in favour of D-3 (Items 6 to 8 of the plaint schedule properties). Challenging the part of the decree and judgment that went against them D-9 to D-14 filed A.S.No.36/1991 and plaintiffs filed A.S.No.46 of 1991 and 8th defendant filed A.S.No.53 of 1991. The learned Appellate Court i.e, the Additional District Judge, Anantapur, by his common judgment, dismissed all the appeals and confirmed the judgment in O.S.No.207 of 1977 passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment in A.S.No.36 of 1991, D-9 to D-14 filed S.A.No.546 of 1999. The plaintiffs i.e. L.R.s of D-4 who was transposed as plaintiff filed S.A.No.197 of 1999 challenging the judgment in A.S.No.46 of 1991. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff is that D-1 had been accustomed to wayward life and incurred debts indiscriminately and though the joint family is having 65 acres of land, he was squandering the income of the joint family and that all the alienations made by D-1 are without any legal necessity and binding on plaintiff and D-4 to D-7. The lands sold to D-3 are garden lands having a well and those lands are sold at a low price. D-1 filed a memo stating that he is not willing to prosecute the suit. The sum and substance of the contentions of other contesting defendants is that whatever debts contracted by D-1 were for family necessity and for his maintenance D-1 had mortgaged certain properties in favour of one Gundarapu Balaiah on 11-08-1966 for his necessity and that D-1 after selling lands to D-3 discharged of said Gundarapu Balaiah. The defendants, who purchased lands from D-1 are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and that said sales are binding on D-4 to D- 7. D-8 in his written statement further alleged that D-1 had contracted debts from Balappa, Rama lakshmamma and Atmakur Narasappa and others and that they were pressing D-1 to discharge their debts. Though the relationship of D-1 and D-4 to D-7 was also challenged but the same is not in challenge in these appeals. Sri Atchyuthananda Dondeti, learned counsel for the appellants in S.A.No.197 of 1999 i.e. the plaintiffs submitted that the courts below ought to have considered the conduct of the 1st defendant who went to the extent of denying his relationship with his wife and children and ought to have considered that the 1st defendant was addicted to vices and he was neither looking after his wife nor the children, though he was deriving income from 65 acres of land. It is also his submission that there was no necessity to the 1st defendant to alienate the properties and that the sales are clearly not for any legal necessity. His second submission is that there was an ordinance prohibiting the sale of agricultural lands under the provisions of A.P.Agricultural Lands Prohibition of Alienation Act 1972, and, therefore, the registered sale deed executed under Ex.B2 dated 23.5.1977 is hit by the provisions of the said ordinance. It is also his submission that the evidence of P.W.7 was not taken into consideration by the Courts below. Another submission is that the land covered by Ex.B2 is having a bore with motor and it is the only land, which is yielding paddy crop to the family of the plaintiff and the said valuable land was sold at a very low price. It is also submitted that though some properties were under mortgage but there was no pressure from mortgagee. It is also his submission that no suit was filed against D-1 and not even a legal notice was issued to him, and, therefore, there was no necessity for D-1 to sell the land. It is also his submission that the value of the land was about Rs.10,000/- per acre at that time, but the entire 8 acres of the land was sold for Rs.15,000/-. The learned counsel for the respondents in S.A.No.197 of 1999 submits that admittedly the 1st defendant mortgaged his lands in favour of one G.Balappa under Ex.B-1 on 11.8.1966 and that there was legal necessity to discharge the said debt and as D.W.2 was pressurizing D1, D1 sold the item numbers 6 to 8 under Ex.B2 on 23.5.1977 for Rs.15,000/- and discharged the debt under Ex.B1. It is also his submission that the recitals of Ex.B2 and the evidence on record shows that after selling the lands under Ex.B2, D1 discharged the debt under Ex.B1. Therefore, the sale under Ex.B1 is for legal necessity. It is also his submission that the prohibition under A.P.Agricultural lands Prohibition of Alienation Act 1972 and the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 do not apply to the facts of this case, since it is not the case of the plaintiffs or defendants that the 1st defendant sold the properties with a view and for the purpose of defeating the provisions of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and to save his lands, the provision of said Acts are not applicable to the facts of this case. However, it is also his submission that the sale under Ex.B4 was a registered sale deed executed by D1 in favour of D2 for Rs.6,000/- and since it is a bonafide purchase for a valuable consideration, the lower Court ought to have held that the sale is for legal necessity. The substantial question of law formulated in the Second Appeal No.546 of 1999 is whether the Courts below have acted legally in holding that the sale in favour of the appellant is not for legal necessity only on the ground that there is no recital in the sale deed as legally sustainable? The substantial questions of law formulated in the S.A.No.197 of 1999 are as follows:- “1. Whether the learned judge ought to have seen that the alleged mortgage under Ex.B1 had wiped out the provisions of Act 7/1977 and as such could not form the basis of any consideration for the sale under Ex.B2? 2. Whether the lower appellate Court ought to have seen that the evidence of D.W.2 and the admission made by D.W.1 clearly shows that the sale under Ex.B2 was not at all justified nor was it binding on the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 (defendants 4, 5 and 6)? 3. Whether the learned judge ought to have considered whether Exs.B1 and B2 are binding on the plaintiff, and it failed to note that the mere delay in challenging the same did not rectify its invalidity.” The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the provision of A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 apply to the facts of this case? 2) Whether Exs.B-1 and B-2 are not binding the plaintiff and D-4 to D-7? 3) Whether the sale in favour of D-2 (appellant in S.A.No.546 of 1999) is for legal necessity? Section 4 of the A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act 1977 reads as follows:- “4. Discharge of debts and relief to debtors:- (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) Pawn Broker Act, 1943, the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Agricultural Debtors’ Relief Act, 1956, the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Area) Money Lenders Regulation, 1960, the Andhra Pradesh Indebted Agriculturists, Landless Labourers Artisans (Temporary Relief) Act, 1976 or any other law for the time being in force or any contract or other instrument having the force of law and save as otherwise provided in this Act with effect on and from the commencement of this Act every debt, including interest, if any creditor by an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer shall be deemed to be wholly discharged.” Thus, it is abundantly clear that the above provision is applicable in respect of the debts incurred by an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer and it is not applicable to others. ‘Agricultural labourer’ has been defined in Section 3 (b) of the act as follows:- “Agricultural labourer” means a person who does not hold any agricultural land and whose principal means of livelihood is by manual labour on agricultural land, in the capacity of a labourer on hire or on exchange, whether paid in cash or in kind or partly in cash and partly in kind;” The ‘rural artisans’ is defined in Section 3 (r) of the Act as follows:- “rural artisans” means a person who does not hold any agricultural land and whose principal means of livelihood is production or repair of traditional tools, implements and other articles or things used for agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto, and includes a fisherman and any person who normally earns his livelihood by practicing a craft either by his own labour or by the labour of all or any of the members of his family in rural area:” Small farmer is defined in Section 3 (t) of the Act reads as follows: “‘small farmer’ means a person whose principal means of livelihood is income derived from agricultural land and who holds and personally cultivates, or who cultivated as a tenant or sharecropper or mortgage with possession, agricultural land which does not exceed in extent.” Admittedly, the 1st defendant who was holding about 60 acres of land would not come under the definition of ‘agricultural labourer’, ‘rural artisan’ or ‘small farmer’ and it is not even the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any relief under Section 4 of the A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act 1977 which has been enacted for the purpose of giving relief to the agricultural laborours, rural artisans and small farmers in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot say that the provisions of the Act 7 of 1997 wiped out the mortgaged debt under Ex.B1. Similarly, the provisions of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 are not applicable to the facts of this case, since it is nobody’s case that D-1 had alienated the lands with a view or for the purpose of defeating the provisions of the said Act. Point No.2: (S.A.No.197 of 1999) It is not in dispute that certain properties were mortgaged in favour of one G.Balappa (D.W.2) under Ex.B1 on 11.8.1966. The cross-examination of D.W.1 only reveals that he had admitted that Balappa DW-2 had not filed a suit against D-1 and the suit property was ancestral property of D1. Merely because Balappa DW-2 did not file any suit against D-1, it cannot be said that there was no legal necessity for the first defendant to sell the lands to discharge the debts incurred by him. Coming to the evidence of D.W.2-G.Balappa, he had categorically deposed that he had dealings with D1’s family and that D-1’s father also contacted debts and that D-1 was not getting sufficient income and in the above circumstances, D1 mortgaged his lands for a sum of Rs.6,000/- and executed mortgaged deed under Ex.B1 on 11.8.1966. According to him, the total amount of Rs.6,000/- comprised debt of Rs.4,000/- due to the debt incurred by the father of D1 and cash of Rs.2,000/- paid to D1 for repairing the Well and for purchase of bulls. According to him, he was demanding to D-1 to discharge debt amount and that D-1 discharged the debt under Ex.B1, after selling the lands under Ex.B2. According to him, he had attested Ex.B2 transaction. It is not in dispute that recitals of Ex.B-2 refer to the debt under Ex.B-1. The cross-examination of D.W.2 only shows that D1 had 60 acres of land and that the land covered under Ex.B2 is a garden land. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the evidence of D.W.2 shows that the sale under Ex.B2 was not for legal necessity. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the mortgage deed under Ex.B1 and sale under Ex.B2 are not binding on the plaintiffs. As far as sale under Ex.B2 is concerned, it is clear from the evidence that sale in favour of D-3 by D-1 in respect of items 6 to 8 of the plaint schedule became necessary for discharge of debt under Ex.B-1. There is nothing to disturb the concurrent finding of both the courts below. As far as the sale under Ex.B-4 is concerned, the trial Court discussed that D1 was owning 65 acres of land and further observed that D5 who supposed to have attested Ex.B4 categorically stated that he does not know whether Ex.B4 sale was meant for discharge of D1’s debts. The trial Court also discussed that the evidence of D4 and D5 and observed that D4 stated that the consideration under Ex.B4 was paid in the Sub-Registrar Office whereas D5 stated that the consideration was paid outside the office of sub-registrar. So, not only the recitals of Ex.B4 were taken into consideration, but the evidence of DWs.4 and 5 was also taken into consideration by the trial Court. Similarly, the appellate Court also discussed the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to say that sale under Ex.B4 is for the discharge of debts incurred by D1. Admittedly, the 1st defendant had mortgaged certain lands under Ex.B1 on 11.8.1966 and within two years, he has sold the lands under Ex.B4 for Rs.6,000/-. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that after selling the lands under Ex.B4, D1 discharged the mortgaged debt under Ex.B1. Therefore, it is clear that the sale under Ex.B-4 is not for the purpose of discharging debts incurred by D-1. No other legal necessity is proved. The findings of the courts below cannot be said to be perverse, so those findings cannot be disturbed. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there are no merits in the appeals and no substantial questions of law worth consideration arise in these appeals. Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Date:30.7.2010. mrb