G. T. NANAVATI, S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the creditor. He has filed this petition in which he is challenging the award made by the Debt Settlement Offi- cer under the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 and confirmed by the Appellate Officer: ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 2 and 3 owned to the petitioner decretal Debt amounting to Rs. 7 500 They applied to the Debt Settlement Officer under the Act in which they contended that on the appointed day they were marginal farmers and that therefore their debt was extingui- shed. Respondents Nos. 1 2 and 3 by executing an agreement of sale had charged their land with repayment of the debt which they owed to the petitioner. The Debt Settlement Officer held that respondents No. 1 2 and 3 were on the appointed day marginal farmers and that therefore their debt was extinguished. He ordered that the agreement of sale which respondents Nos. 1 2 and 3 had executed in favour of the petitioner had become unenforceable and therefore void. ( 3 ) THE petitioner appealed against that award to the Appellate Officer. He dismissed the appeal and confirmed the award. ( 4 ) IT is that award which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition. ( 5 ) MR. S. D. Shah who appears on behalf of the petitioner has raised before us two constitutional contentions. His first contention is that sec. 3 and sec. 14 of the Act are ultra vires Art. 19 (1) (f) and Art. 300a. In Special Civil Application No. 2279 of 1979 decided by us on 16th and 17/12/1980 (Vora Saiyadbhai Kadarbhai v. Saiyad Intejam H. Sadumia XXII G. L. R. 596) we have upheld the constitutional validity of sec. 3. We have also upheld the validity of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 14 and a part of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 14. We have struck down a part of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 14 on the ground that it is ultra vires Art. 19 (1) (f) and 19 (1) (g ). For the reasons stated in that decision we turn down the contention raised by Mr. Shah except in respect of a part of sub-sec. (2) which we have declared ultra vires Art. 19 (1) (f) and 19 (1) (g ). 14 on the ground that it is ultra vires Art. 19 (1) (f) and 19 (1) (g ). For the reasons stated in that decision we turn down the contention raised by Mr. Shah except in respect of a part of sub-sec. (2) which we have declared ultra vires Art. 19 (1) (f) and 19 (1) (g ). In the instant case the declaration which we have made in regard to a part of sub-sec (2) of sec. 14 is not material. ( 6 ) THE next constitutional contention which Mr. Shah has raised is that sec. 3 read with sec. 2 (c) in so far as it relates to the decretal liability is ultra vires Art. 254 on the ground that it is inconsistent with the Code of Civil Procedure which is existing law. Mr. Shah has advanced no arguments in support of this constitutional contention. We therefore reject it. ( 7 ) ON merits Mr. Shah has contended that respondents No. 1 2 and 3 jointly owed to the petitioner the debt in question and had been jointly holding the agricultural land. According to him therefore the joint family of respondents No. 1 2 and 3 must be considered to be the debtor and it is character of that debtor which should be determined with reference to the total holding of the joint family. In law the contention which has been raised by Mr. Shah is well-founded. It has been found by the tribunals below that the decretal debt was owed jointly by respondents No. 1 2 and 3 to the petitioner. In other words in respect of the decretal debt respondents No. 1 2 and 3 were jointly and severally liable to the petitioner. It has also been found as a fact by the Tribunals below that the lands which they were cultivating were shown in the revenue record in the joint names of three brothers. Obviously therefore they were joint owners. Sec. 2 (i) of the Act defines owner in the following terms:owner in relation to land includes a Person holding the land as occupant or landholder as defined in the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 as in force in the State of Gujarat. Obviously therefore they were joint owners. Sec. 2 (i) of the Act defines owner in the following terms:owner in relation to land includes a Person holding the land as occupant or landholder as defined in the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 as in force in the State of Gujarat. Sec. 3 (25) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 defines the term joint holders or joint occupants in the following terms:the term joint holders or joint occupants means holders or occupants who hold land as co-sharers whether as co-sharers in a family undivided according to Hindu law or otherwise and whose shares are not divided by metes and bounds and where land is held by joint hold or joint occupants holder or occupant as the case may be means all of the joint holders or joint occupants. IT is clear therefore that respondent Nos. 1 2 and 3 in whose joint names their lands were shown in the revenue records were the joint owners or joint occupants of their lands. They jointly incurred the debt. Therefore what was necessary to be decided in the instant case was the joint status with reference to the joint ownership of their land. ( 8 ) IT has been found that respondents No. 1 2 and 3 owned 11 acres 23 gunthas of land which is equivalent to 4 Hectares 63 Ares. In respect of the joint debt which respondents 1 2 and 3 owed to the petitioner their joint holding of agricultural land was therefore 4 Hectares 63 Ares. The lan s are situate at Amreli proper. The Schedule to the Act shows that a small farmer as defined by sec. 2 (p) is one whose land does not exceed the area of land shown in the 5th column against his village. So far as Amreli is concerned the Schedule shows that a small farmer is one who owns 3. 03 Hectares or less-not being less than 1-52 Hectares. In view of this fact it is clear that respondents No 1 2 and 3 had been holding on the appointed day 4. 63 H. A. of agricultural land. It excee- ded the ceiling prescribed in the Schedule for one to become a small farmer. 03 Hectares or less-not being less than 1-52 Hectares. In view of this fact it is clear that respondents No 1 2 and 3 had been holding on the appointed day 4. 63 H. A. of agricultural land. It excee- ded the ceiling prescribed in the Schedule for one to become a small farmer. Respondents No. 1 2 and 3 were therefore not small farmer within the meaning of that expression given in the Act-much less were they marginal farmer as found by the Debt Settlement Officer and the Appellate Officer. ( 9 ) THE Tribunals below were in error in considering the decretal debt of respondents 1 2 and 3 jointly and in artificially dividing on paper their shares in agricultural land for deciding their status whether they were on the appointed day marginal farmers or small farmers. In case of a joint family it is the joint family which is the debtor and it is the land of the joint family which must determine the status of the joint family. In case of joint debtors they constitute a unit and it is their joint holding of agricultural land which must be taken into account for the purpose of determining their status-whether they were marginal farmers or small farmers on the appointed day. ( 10 ) WE may however observe that different considerations will pre- vail where lands are owned jointly but holders are not joint holders or where they are Joint debtors who do not own lands jointly. None of these alternatives is required to be considered in this case. ( 11 ) IT has however been pointed out to us that the impugned award shows that respondents No. 1 2 and 3 had been cultivating land separately. The lands appeared in the revenue records in their joint names. They were therefore joint owners or joint occupants. If they had been cultiva- ting separately different portions of lands it appears that they were doing so for the sake of mere convenience. There is no evidence to show that there was any partition between them. It is also necessary to remember that the debt which they owed is the joint debt. Whether such a joint debt should be extinguished or scaled down cannot be decided by taking into account undivided individual shares of joint holders. There is no evidence to show that there was any partition between them. It is also necessary to remember that the debt which they owed is the joint debt. Whether such a joint debt should be extinguished or scaled down cannot be decided by taking into account undivided individual shares of joint holders. ( 12 ) IN the result we find that since respondents 1 2 and 3 held agricultural land which exceeded the ceiling prescribed by the Act for a small farmer they were not entitled to make the present application for adjustment of their debts. ( 13 ) IN the result we allow the petition quash and set aside the impu- gned award and dismiss the Debt Adjustment Application made by res- pondents No. 1 2 and 3. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .