Individual debtor's holding alone governs relief under the agricultural indebtedness statute; minor children's holdings are not clubbed.

The Act, being a beneficial local statute, must be construed to advance relief for agricultural labourers, rural artisans and small farmers. For entitlement to relief, the relevant test is whether the individual debtor personally satisfies the statutory requirements of small farmer status and principal livelihood from agriculture; the holdings of minor children are not to be clubbed with the debtor's holding if that would defeat relief otherwise available. On that construction, the debtor's own holding alone was reckonable and relief was available.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for determining entitlement to relief under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977, the holding and livelihood of the individual debtor alone should be taken into account, or whether the holding of the debtor's minor children must be clubbed with it.

Analysis: The Act is a beneficial local statute intended to grant relief to agricultural labourers, rural artisans and small farmers, and its provisions must be construed so as to advance that purpose. The definition of "person" in Section 3(p) includes an individual or a family, while the definitions of "family" and "small farmer" in Section 3(l) and Section 3(t) operate in the statutory setting of Sections 3 and 4. The relevant inquiry is whether the debtor individually satisfies the statutory test of being a small farmer with principal livelihood from agriculture and limited holding. The beneficial object of the enactment does not support clubbing the holdings of minor children so as to defeat relief otherwise available to the individual debtor.

Conclusion: The individual holding of the debtor alone is reckonable, and the debtor was entitled to the relief under the Act. The appeal failed.

---