( 1 ) THIS Rule is at the instance of the creditors, for quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramanagaram, made under Sec A of the karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976, (hereinafter called 'the Act' ). ( 2 ) THE facts leading on to the Rule can be put in a short compass: dasegowda alias Chikkonu, respondent-2, borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000 from petitioner-1 under a registered mortgage deed d/ 3-7-75 delivering possession of one acre of land in Sy. No. 25 of Nagapura village in Channapatna taluk. The tolal extent of the said land is 2 acres and 9 guntas. On the same day, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,000 from petitioner-2 executing another mortgage deed delivering possession of one more acre of land. The two petitioners are thus in possession, of two acres of land in Sy. No. 25 and respondent-2 is in possession of the remaining 9 guntas of land. After the coming into force of the Act, respondent-2 filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate claiming relief under Sec. 4. The petitioners appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and opposed the said application. They said that respondent-2 is a holder of more than four acres of land, and, therefore, not entiiled to any relief under the Act. But, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after enquiry, held that Respt-2 was in possession of 1 acre and 10 guntas of dry land and 21 guntas of garden land which together work out less than one 'unit' as defined under the act. He also held that respondent-2 has no other source of income other than agriculture. Accordingly, he directed the petitioners to deliver possession of the land to respondent-2. Challenging the validity of the aforesaid order, the petitioners, have moved this Court for relief under Article 226. ( 3 ) THE question raised for the petitioners is in a short compass. M. Papanna, learned Counsel for the petitioners, mainly urged that the sub-Divisional Magistrate did not take into consideration the land mortgaged by respondent-2 while determining the extent of land held by him and, if that land is included in the total holding of respondent-2, it comes to more than one unit, and respondent-2 would be disentitled to the relief asked for. ( 4 ) FROM a perusal of the impugned order, it becomes clear that the sub-Divisional Magistrate was of opinion that respondent-2 was a small farmer, but while holding so he did not take into consideration the land mortgaged to the petitioners in determining the extent of land held by respondent-2. Perhaps, he was under the impression that since the petitioners are in possession of two acres of land in Sy. NO. 25, it should not be included in the extent of land held by respondent-2. I do not think that that view is a correct one. The definition of the word 'debtor' includes a 'small farmer' also. 'small farmer' is again defined under Sec. 3 (e) of the Act. It means a person who holds whether as owner, tenant, ro mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity and partly in another not more than one unit of land and who has no income from any source other than agriculture. The two restrictions imposed by the above definition are; (i)- that tthe person or debtor should not hold more than one unit of land whether as owner, tenant, or mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity and partly in another ; and (ii) that he shall not have any other source of income other than agriculture. In the instant case, respondent-2 has satisfied the second requirement; but, according to me, not the first one. The definition of a 'small holder' does not provide that the debtor or the small holder must be in actual possession of the land as owner. It is sufficient if he holds the land as owner, tenant, or mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity and partly in another. Sec. 2 (11) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, defines the expression 'to hold land' or to be a 'land-holder' or 'holder' of land to mean to be in lawful possession of land, whether such possession is actual or not. From this definition, it is clear that a person, 'to hold land' need not necessarily be in actual possession of it. Therefore, the land which has been mortgaged with possession to the petitioners must be held to be a land held by respondent-2 who is the owner of it. From this definition, it is clear that a person, 'to hold land' need not necessarily be in actual possession of it. Therefore, the land which has been mortgaged with possession to the petitioners must be held to be a land held by respondent-2 who is the owner of it. That being the legal position, while determining the extent of land held by respondent-2, the subject-matter of the transaction also must be taken into consideration. ( 5 ) IN the above view, respondent-2 has no case on merits. If the extent of two acres of land mortgaged to the petitioners is taken into consideration, the total extent of land held by respondent-2 falls beyond one unit. 'unit' has been defined under Sec. 3 (f) of the Act to mean : (i) two hectares of unirrigated lands; or (ii) one and one-fourth hectares of rainfed wet lands; or (iii) half hectare of land having facilities for growing one irrigated crop; or (iv) * * * * (v) * * * * (vi) * * * * " it is not in dispute that the land mortgaged to the petitioners is a wet land, and appears to be very fertile. Two acres of such land means a little more than one unit. Half a hectare means one acre and eight and half guntas of that class of land. It is also not in dispute that respondent-2 also holds 1 acre and 10 guntas of dry land and 21 guntas of garden land. All put together, the extent of land held by respondent-2 exceeds one unit therefore, respondent-2 cannot claim to be a 'small farmer'. ( 6 ) IN the result, the rule is made absolute. The impugned order is quashed. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .