ORDER
Sampath Kumaran, J.
1. The revision petitioners are defendants respondents in E.P. No. 64 of 1986 before the learned District Munsif of Tiruchengode in a suit O.S. No. 1432 of 1978 which was decreed by the Sub Court, Salem. The decree-holder filed that E.P. for realising the decree amount. The revision petitioners who are the defendants in the suit opposed the execution petition mainly on two grounds i.e., they are entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Debts Relief Act 31 of 1976 and Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980.
2. On a perusal of the order of the trial court, I find that the trial court has found that the revision petitioners who as the defendants in the suit raised the plea that they are entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976; but their plea was rejected. This finding of the executing court is not questioned before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Therefore,it is no more open to the petitioners to rely upon the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976 and claim that they are small fanners not liable to pay the decree amount.
3. The next question is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980. The Act provides that the debtors should be possessed of an yearly income of not more than Rs. 4,800 to claim the benefits of this Act. The executing court has rendered a finding after consideration of the evidence placed before it that the yearly income of the first petition is Rs. 6,000 and therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of this Act. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, he held that there is no plea in the counter and there is no evidence to show that he is entitled to the benefits of this Act. This finding of the executing court that the first petitioner is having an yearly income of Rs. 6,000 cannot be questioned before me sitting in revision as it is not stated to be perverse. Therefore the finding has to be accepted. The cumulative effect of this finding is that the revision petitioners will not be entitled to the relief of either of the Debt Relief Acts. Therefore, there is no error in the orders of the executing court and the revision has to fail. As such, the revision petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances without costs.