Dilla Ram vs Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Bhadson (Karnal)

L.N. Mittal, J.

C. M. No. 13672-C of 2011 :

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the instant application because substantial questions of law arising in the second appeal, as mentioned in this application, have already been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the `Grounds of Appeal''.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

Main Appeal :

Plaintiff Dilla Ram, having been non-suited by both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. In the suit, the plaintiff-appellant sought waiver of his agricultural tractor loan taken from the defendant-respondent Central Bank of India, in view of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (in short - the Scheme) alleging that the plaintiff, being owner of 04 acres land only i.e. less than 05 acres, comes within the purview of small farmer under the Scheme, and therefore, is entitled to waiver of entire outstanding loan amount in view of paragraph 5.1 of the Scheme.

The defendant resisted the suit by alleging that the plaintiff and his son Sanjay Kumar, while applying for loan, mentioned the land under their cultivation to be 16 acres. It was alleged that under the Scheme, not only the land under ownership of the debtor, but also the land under cultivation, whether on contract or on batai, has to be taken into consideration to determine whether the debtor is small farmer or not. The plaintiff is not small farmer, and therefore, is not entitled to benefit of the Scheme.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, vide judgment and decree dated 26.03.2010, dismissed the plaintiff''s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Karnal, vide judgment and decree dated 01.09.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the plaintiff''s contention that the plaintiff, being owner of 04 acres land only, is a small farmer under the Scheme and is, therefore, entitled to waiver of the entire outstanding loan amount in view of paragraph 5.1 of the Scheme. The contention cannot be accepted. Definition of small farmer, as given in paragraph 3.6 of the Scheme, depicts that small farmer means a farmer, who cultivates land from 01 hectare to 02 hectares (05 acres) either as his own or on contract or on batai i.e. as crop-sharer. It is not even the case of the plaintiff that land under his cultivation was 05 acres or less. His entire case is based on the plea that he is owner of less than 05 acres land. Consequently, the plaint averments do not depict that plaintiff is a small farmer under the Scheme. To come within the purview of small farmer, the plaintiff was required to plead and prove that the entire land under his cultivation either as owner or on contract or on batai is not more than 05 acres. However, there is neither any such pleading nor any evidence so as to bring the plaintiff within the definition of small farmer under the Scheme. On the contrary, the plaintiff and his son, in appraisal form Ex.DW-1/A, specifically mentioned that the land under their cultivation was 16 acres. Defendant examined plaintiff''s son Sanjay Kumar as DW-1 and he admitted his signatures on the aforesaid appraisal form.

Counsel for the appellant, however, referred to application made by plaintiff and his son on the same day, wherein they mentioned the land under their ownership to be 31/2 acres and land under cultivation on lease as 06 acres. However, it is plaintiff''s own case that he owns 04 acres land. Consequently, the plea that he owned 31/2 acres land only, as per application, cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the total land under cultivation was mentioned to be 91/2 acres in the application, but the same was apparently not accepted by the bank. On the contrary, appraisal form depicted 16 acres land under cultivation of the plaintiff and his son. If said area had not been under their cultivation, the defendant possibly might not have extended the tractor loan. The plaintiff is thus estopped from pleading that he is a small farmer, having taken loan by depicting that he along with his son was cultivating 16 acres land.

Counsel for the appellant also contended that under paragraph 6.1 of the Scheme, the plaintiff, even if he is not a small farmer, is entitled to waiver of loan to the extent of 25% or Rs. 20,000/-, which ever is more. However, no such benefit was even claimed by the plaintiff in the suit and the contention is completely beyond pleadings. Even otherwise, conditions for availing of the said benefit under the Scheme have not been fulfilled by the plaintiff. He could get the said benefit by paying the balance 75% outstanding loan, but the plaintiff did not do so. Consequently, the plaintiff is also not entitled to benefit under paragraph 6.1 of the Scheme.

Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below to non-suit the plaintiff is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding does not suffer from any infirmity, much less perversity or illegality nor it is based on misappreciation or misreading of evidence so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.