Sukha Singh vs Chand Singh and others

J.V. Gupta, J.

This petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated 31st October, 1981, whereby the objection petition filed on behalf of the judgmentdebtorpetitioner was dismissed.

Chand Singh and others, respondentsdecreeholders, obtained a money decree of Rs. 3417/ on 11th May, 1976 against Sukha Singh petitioner judgmentdebtor. During the execution proceedings Sukha Singh judgmentdebtor filed an objection petition on the plea that he is protected by the Punjab Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1975, as he is a rural artisan, a resident of Punjab, an agricultural labourer, owns no landed property, his total assets are less than Rs. 50,000/ and he is also from a backward class. It was further pleaded that the debt in dispute was incurred before 12th August, 1975. Therefore, he is to be discharged in view of protection provided in the aforesaid Act. This petition was contested on behalf of the decreeholder inter alia on the ground that the said Act was not applicable and that the judgmentdebtor was not protected by the said Act as claimed by him. It was denied that the judgmentdebtor was a rural artisan or an agricultural labourer.

On the pleadings of the parties, the executing Court framed the following issued :

"Whether the applicantjudgmentdebtor is entitled to protection of Punjab Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1975, as alleged ? OPD." The executing Court found that the judgmentdebtor had failed to prove the date of the debt, as to whether it was in existence on the commencement of the aforesaid Act or not and, therefore, could not claim any protection under the provisions of the said Act. It was further found that the judgmentdebtor had failed to prove that he was a rural artisan or an agricultural labourer as defined in the aforesaid Act. Ultimately the objection petition was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the judgmentdebtor has filed this petition in this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the suit in which the decree was passed on 11th May, 1976 was instituted on 5th June, 1975, whereas the said Act came into force on 12th August, 1975. Thus the debt was in existence at the time of the commencement of the Act. It was further contended that the judgmentdebtor was a rural artisan or in any case he is a debtor because `Debtor'' means a rural artisan and also includes a person who earns his livelihood mainly by working as an agricultural labourer.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence on the record. It is the common case of the parties that the judgmentdebtor is earning his livelihood mainly by working as a siri. If it is so, then his case certainly falls within the definition of `debtor'' as given in section 2(b) of the aforesaid Act, which includes a person who earns his livelihood mainly by working as a agricultural labourer. The argument raised on behalf of the decreeholders that a siri gets his share in lumpsum and in kind, whereas, a labourer gets his wages and, therefore, a siri could not be held to be an agricultural labourer, has no substance. A person remains a debtor when he earns his livelihood mainly by working as an agricultural labourer. If a person gets his wages in lumpsum being a siri, in that situation he does not cease to be an agricultural labourer. The mode of payment is not the criterion to find out whether a person is an agricultural labourer or not. Thus, it has been amply proved on the record that the judgmentdebtor falls within the definition of the term `debtor'' as defined in the Act. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to the protection of the aforesaid Act. The approach of the executing Court in this behalf is wholly erroneous and illegal and thus it has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition succeeds, the order of the executing Court, dismissing the objection petition, is set aside and the objection filed on behalf of the judgmentdebtor are allowed, with no order as to costs.