JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - The petitioner filed Original Suit No. 14 of 1977 in the Court of Civil Judge, Rampur, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,500/- against the respondent no. 3 on the basis of a promissory note dated February 10, 1974, executed by the respondent for consideration of Rs. 5,000/- payable on demand with interest at the rate of 18 per centum per annum. The suit was contested by the respondent. Among other pleas it was asserted by him that the debt is to be deemed as discharged and the suit abated in view of the provisions contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the U.P. Debt Relief Act, 1977. Other pleas were also taken in defence, but we are not concerned with the same in this proceeding. The trial court upheld the plea taken by the respondent in this respect and dismissed the suit accordingly on 26th November, 1977. Petitioner thereupon preferred appeal, which was decided by the I Additional District Judge, Rampur, on 27th October, 1979, and he affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court. The appeal also was dismissed. 2. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent could not, upon the facts and the material placed on the record, claim to be entitled to the benefit of Section 4 (a) of the U.P. Debt Relief Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act'). According to the provision contained in Section 4 (a) every debt together with any interest payable on the date of the commencement of this Act by a debtor whose annual household income does not exceed Rs. 2400/- shall, with effect from the date of such commencement, be deemed to be wholly discharged. The Act commenced on February 21, 1977. The expression 'annual household income' is defined in Section 2 (1) of the Act as meaning in relation to a debtor the aggregate of the annual income from all sources of all the members of his family for the year 1976. The word 'debtor' is defined in Section 2(6) as meaning a landless agricultural labourer besides a marginal farmer, a rural artisan or an urban worker who owes a debt, but does not include a small farmer. The word 'debtor' is defined in Section 2(6) as meaning a landless agricultural labourer besides a marginal farmer, a rural artisan or an urban worker who owes a debt, but does not include a small farmer. The expression 'landless agricultural labourer' is defined in Section 2 (8) as meaning, inter alia, a person residing in a village, who on the date of commencement of the Act does not hold any land whose principal means of livelihood is manual labour on agricultural land. 4. Contention of the learned counsel is that the respondent has held land covering an area of nearly 35 acres in Gajjapura. For the respondent it was pleaded in the courts below that his possession over this land was that of trespasser. There was dispute regarding this laud before the consolidation authorities. The claim set up by the respondent vis-a-vis that land was repelled by the appellate consolidation authority as will appear from the judgment dated 10-1-1980. Against this judgment the respondent has preferred a revision, which, it is urged, is pending still, The argument advanced is that assuming that possession of this land was taken from the respondent no. 2 with effect from May 30, 1976, as contended by him, there will have been income derived by him in the year 1976 out of the rabi crop sown on this land upto the said date. This argument may not be said of assistance to the petitioner for two reasons. 5. In the first place, as will appear from the definition given to the expression 'landless agricultural labourer' in Section 2 (8) he has to be a person who on the date of commencement of this Act does not hold any land and whose principal means of livelihood is manual labour on agricultural land. As I mentioned above the Act commenced on February 21, 1977. In view of the decision made by the consolidation authorities, the respondent cannot be said to have held this land on 21st February, 1977, when the Act commenced. In case the revision filed by him were to succeed it may be that he is deemed to have held the land all along. In view of the decision made by the consolidation authorities, the respondent cannot be said to have held this land on 21st February, 1977, when the Act commenced. In case the revision filed by him were to succeed it may be that he is deemed to have held the land all along. But on the mere ground that a revision against the appellate decision of the consolidation authority is pending, it cannot be said that the judgment has ceased to be operative or that the title or claim setup by the respondent vis-a-vis that land is for the time being not lost. This apart, it was upto the petitioner, in capacity as the plaintiff, to establish by evidence the income which the respondent may have derived out of this land in village Gajjupura upto May 30, 1976, in the year 1976. It is the income of the year 1976 which alone is to be taken into account in view of the definition of the expression 'annual household income' given in Section 2 (1). We may not proceed on guess work. So far as this is concerned the burden upon the petitioner to prove and since there is on positive evidence shown to exist about the earning made by the respondent from this land or other sources upto 30th May, 1976, amounting to Rs. 2400/- or above, it may not he claimed that on this ground respondent, is not entitled to assert that he was a landless agricultural labourer on the relevant date. 6. The other contention for the petitioner partains to land in village Abbas Nagar. The contention is that in that village the respondent has held land measuring about 28 bighas. In support of this the petitioner placed on record extract of khatauni marked as exhibit 5 before the trial court. The observation made by the trial court in respect thereof is :- "The plaintiff has filed extract of khatauni exhibit 5 to show that defendant holds more than 28 bighas (Bandobasti) land in village Abbas Nagar X X X. However, a perusal of exhibit 5 shows that it is a record of a trespasser's possession. The evidence on record clearly shows that the defendant was a trespasser on the land shown in Ex. 5 and the defendant also admitted it. The evidence on record clearly shows that the defendant was a trespasser on the land shown in Ex. 5 and the defendant also admitted it. The defendant has, however, deposed that he has been dispossessed during the consolidation proceedings from the entire land over which he had taken possession and that he was a trespasser." 7. From these observations in the context 'it will appear that there is a confusion clearly existing in the mind of the trial court. The trial court appears to have mixed up the case pertaining to land to village Gajjupura with that of land in village Abbas Nagar. So far as the question of dispossession from the land is concerned this averment was made in respect of land in village Gajjupura the relevant date being 30th May, 1976, and not in regard to land in village Abbas Nagar. In the counter-affidavit tiled for the respondent it has been asserted that extract brought on the record by the petitioner in the court below was forged. The trial court ought to have been considered the genuineness or otherwise if that extract on its merits taking into consideration the evidence produced in this respect. Even if the respondent was trespasser vis-a-vis this land on the commencement of the Act, in case income derived by him in the year 1976, reached the target laid down in the Act, the possession over the land could not be discarded. The more important fact in this respect further is that the appellate court has altogether omitted to make any reference to land in village Abbas Nagar. It has confined itself to what is situate in village Gajjupra alone and this legitimately entitled to petitioner to contend as he does in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the claim set up by him in relation to respondent vis-a-vis the land situate in village Abbas Nagar remains unadjudicated. The appellate court ought to have considered whether the extract of khatauni relied upon by the petitioner in this respect was genuine and whether the respondent did hold the said land on the commencement of the Act and whether from that land he was in position to derive the income contemplated under the Act in the year 1976. 8. For the discussion made in the above, this petition succeeds in part only. The decision recorded by the appellate court dated 27-10-1979 is set aside. 8. For the discussion made in the above, this petition succeeds in part only. The decision recorded by the appellate court dated 27-10-1979 is set aside. The respondent no. 1, namely, First Additional District Judge, Rampur, is directed to redecide the appeal on merit and in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in the above expeditiously after hearing the parties. Costs shall be borne by the parties.