Judgment 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The defendant borrowed Rs.2,800 from the plaintiff on 12.10.1972 and executed the suit pronote agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per cent per annum, but, he did not repay that amount, The interest is claimed at 9% per annum since the defendant is an agriculturist. 3. The case of the defendant is as follows: The suit pronote is not supported by consideration. The defendant got some money from the plaintiff after leaving a blank pronotes and the defendant repaid that amount. After some years, misunderstanding arose between the plaintiff and the defendant and the blank pronote was utilised to create a pronote and the defendant is entitled to the benefit under various Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Acts, particularly Act 31 of 1976 since he is a small farmer. 4. The trial court found that the suit pronote is validly supported by consideration, but, dismissed the suit as the defendant is a small farmer and is entitled to the benefits under the Act 31 of 1976. The judgment and decree of the trial court was confirmed by the first appellate court. 5. Aggrieved against the concurrent finding, the plaintiff has preferred the present second appeal. 6. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admission of the second appeal is as follows: “Tamil Nadu Act 15 of 1976 having come into force on 15.1.1976 by pleading partition as per deed dated 15.9.1976, has not the respondent done it with an intention to defeat and delay his creditorse 7. Both the courts below found that the defendant is entitled to the benefits under the Debt Relief Act, since he is a small farmer and accordingly dismissed the suit. 8. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the defendant was the owner of land of an extent of 3 ½ acres and the partition between himself and his sons took place only in the year 1978 and since the partition had taken place after coming into force of Act 31 of 1976 i.e., on the date of coming into force of Act 31 of 1976 on 29.7.1976, the defendant was the owner of 3 1/ 2 acres of land and so, he is not a small farmer as defined under Act 31 of 1976. 9. 9. The defendant contends that he is a small farmer since she is the owner of one acre of land which is less than ½ hectare i.e., 1,25 acres and so, he comes under the definition of” Small farmer “ under Act 31 of 1976. Ex.B-1 is the proceedings of the Deputy Tahsildar, dated 30.9.1980. On a perusal of Ex.B-1, it is seen that the defendant and his brothers have partitioned their properties on 15.9.1976 under a registered partition deed and in that partition, the defendant was allotted 3 ½ acres of land and then in the year 1978, partition had taken place among the defendant and his sons and in that partition, the defendant was allotted one acre of land. So, only in the year 1978, the defendant was owning one acre of land after Act 31 of 1976 came into force on 29.7.1976. 10. Act 31 of 1976 came into force on 29.7.1976. Sec.3(1) of Act 31 of 1976 reads as follows: “Small farmer’ means a person whose principal means of livelihood is income derived from agricultural land and who holds, whether a owner, tenant, or mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity and partly in another, (i)…. (ii) not more than one unit of land, in another case. ” Sec.3 (a) defines ‘unit of land’ as “half hectare of land having facilities for growing one irrigated crop“. It is seen from Ex.B-1 that at the time of coming into force of Act 31 of 1976, the defendant was the owner of 3 ½ acres of land and only in the partition which took place in the year 1978, the defendant, became owner of one acre of land. 11. Counsel for the appellant submitted that after coming into force of the Act, only in the year 1978, the partition had taken place among the defendant and his sons and that partition was effected only to bring the defendant under the definition ‘small farmer’ under the Debt Relief Act and since the defendant was the owner of 3 ½ acres of land which is more than the extent prescribed under the Act, at the time of coming into force of the Act, the defendant was not entitled to the benefits under the Act as small former and so he is not entitled to the relief asked for. 12. 12. It is well evident from Ex.B-1 that at the time of coming into force of the Act, the defendant was the owner of 3 ½ acres of land. In Rajammal v. Sriramulu Raja In Rajammal v. Sriramulu Raja In Rajammal v. Sriramulu Raja, (1988)1 MLJ. 253 this Court has observed that, “if under the provisions of the Act, a debt, a debt or liability, is in any manner, affected by its provisions on claim to that effect made by a person entitled to claim the benefits of that Act, the enforcement by court of that liability should also be only subject to the impact of the statutory provisions on the liability. Viewed this, way the parting with of a substantial portion of the properties held by the appellant after the commencement of the Act would not enable her to claim the benefits of the Act.” 13. In the present case, on the date of commencement of the Act, the defendant was the owner of 3 ½ acres of land and only after the commencement of the Act, in the year, 1978, the defendant has effected partition between himself and his sons and he became the owner of one acre of land subsequently. Applying the principles laid down in the decision cited supra, it has to be held that the defendant was the absolute owner of 3 ½ acres of land and a substantial portion of the properties was conveyed by him by way of partition after the commencement of the Act and that partition would not enable him to claim the benefit under Debt Relief Act. Since he was the owner of 3 ½ acres of land on the date of commencement of the Act, he does not come under the definition ‘small farmer’ under the Debt Relief Act. Hence, I find that the defendant is not entitled to the benefits under the Debt Relief Act. So, the finding of both the courts below that the defendant is a small farmer and is entitled to the benefits under the Debt Relief Act is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Both the courts below on facts have found that the suit pronote is validly supported by consideration to the extent of Rs.2,800. The plaintiff is claiming interest only on 9% per annum. So, the defendant is liable to the suit claim. 14. Both the courts below on facts have found that the suit pronote is validly supported by consideration to the extent of Rs.2,800. The plaintiff is claiming interest only on 9% per annum. So, the defendant is liable to the suit claim. 14. Accordingly, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree asked for. 15. In the result, the second appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of both the courts below and the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs, however without costs in the second appeal.