Judgment :- 1. A judgment-debtor who is none other than the mother of deceased Vasu, the second respondent before the executing court and who has been impleaded as the legal representative of deceased Vasu, is the revision petitioner. The decree-holder took steps in execution and got attached three items of properties belonging to deceased Vasu. Objections were raised by the revision petitioner mainly contending that she is entitled to the benefit under Act 17 of 1977, for short the Act. A commission was issued by the court below for assessing the income from the properties owned by the revision petitioner. Accordingly the commissioner appointed in the case inspected the properties belonging to the petitioner and submitted his report Ex. Cl. It is also said that another commission was also issued by the court below at the instance of the decree-holder, who submitted his report Ex. C2. 2. On behalf of the decree-holder Pw.1, the decree-holder himself, was examined; while on behalf of the revision petitioner her son Rw.1 was examined and Exts. Cl and C2 were marked as court exhibits. 3. The court below after due consideration of the evidence, particularly Exts. Cl and C2 reports, came to the conclusion that the annual income of the petitioner is more than Rs. 3000/- and therefore she is not entitled to the benefits under Act 17 of 1977. 4. Attacking this order, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that for assessing the annual income of the petitioner for the purpose of finding out whether she is a debtor coming under the Act, the commissioner should not have inspected the personal properties of the revision petitioner and instead he should have inspected the properties of deceased Vasu which has been attached and which is the subject-matter of the case. This contention was never raised before the court below. The court below has pointed out that in spite of the various objections taken the revision petitioner has not raised any specific objection regarding the yield estimated by the commissioner except in respect of 491/2 cents in Sy. No. 298/2. There is absolutely no merit in the contention of the petitioner that for deciding whether a person is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Act 17 of 1977, the income that has to be estimated and considered is not the income from the property which the party personally owns and possesses. No. 298/2. There is absolutely no merit in the contention of the petitioner that for deciding whether a person is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Act 17 of 1977, the income that has to be estimated and considered is not the income from the property which the party personally owns and possesses. In this case, as stated earlier, the revision petitioner has been impleaded as the legal representative of deceased Vasu and therefore the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the commissioner ought to have gone and inspected only those properties which belonged to deceased Vasu, and which could have legally devolved on the revision petitioner by inheritance or otherwise as Vasu's legal representative. This argument is also devoid of any merit. None of the provisions in the Act gives any support whatsoever either directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly, for the contention raised before me in this regard. 'Debtor' has been defined under S.2(4) of Act 17 of 1977. 'Debtor' is defined as any person whose annual income does not exceed three thousand rupees, from whom any debt is due. 5. The executing court has duly considered the evidence on both sides add after proper appreciation has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a debtor coming under the Act. There is no ground made put for interference in revision. This revision petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.