- (1.) The plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit on a promissory note. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the suit promissory note was not a genuine one and he, being an agriculturist, is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. Having accepted the plea of the plaintiff, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by this judgment, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn, allowed the appeal by dismissing the suit.
(2.) Though the lower appellate Court accepted the plea of the plaintiff that the suit promissory note was a genuine one, it gave a finding on the basis of Ex. B . 12 to Ex. B.17 that the defendant owns properties only worth about Rs. 13,000/- which are less than Rs. 25,000/-, the amount prescribed under Act 13 of 1980 and hence, the respondent herein is entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. This is challenged by the plaintiff/appellant herein.
(3.) The counsel for the appellant would press into service the following contentions :- The defendant is not entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 because the trial Court gave a finding that the annual income of the defendant comes to Rs. 8,000/-, which is more than the prescribed limit of Rs. 4,800/- per annum. The finding given by the trial Court with reference to this aspect has not been disturbed by the lower appellate Court. Secondly, the lower appellate Court merely on the basis of the Tahsildar's certificate which is not admittedly marked before the lower appellate Court, though the pattas were marked as Exs. B.12 to B. 17, had arrived at a conclusion that the total value of the properties owned by the defendant was only Rs. 13,000/- as per the certificate of the Tahsildar, and as such, the value of the defendant's property would be less than Rs. 25,000/- which is prescribed limit as per the Act 13 of 1980.;