JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J. 1. The only question involved in second appeal is whether the appellant-defendant is a marginal farmer under M.P. Gramin Rin Vimukti Tatha Rin Sthagan Adhiniyam, 1975 (hereinafter called as Adhiniyam). If he is a marginal farmer under that Act, then the consequences of Section 4 of that Act are to ensue on commencement of Act. One of the consequences is that every debt advanced before the commencement of this Act, including the amount of interest payable by him, to a creditor, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged and no Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit or proceedings against recovery of debt. Even execution proceedings, if the matter is at that stage, shall stand withdrawn, the debtor shall be released of all the debts. The suits and other proceedings shall abate. 2. The marginal farmer under this Act is defined as under :-- "(g) 'Marginal farmer' means an agriculturist who,-- (i) in case of a member ................................................... such land; (ii) in case of a person other than a member of Scheduled Tribe, or Scheduled Caste, holds an agricultural land not exceeding half hectare of irrigated land and who cultivates personally such land." 3. Appellant-defendant's plea is that he was a marginal farmer holding less than half hectare of land. The trial Court concluded that it was not proved as to how much land he had on the date of coming into force of this Adhiniyam. As against this, the first appellate Court said that although his holding was less than half hectare but he had not said that he was personally cultivating the land, and, therefore, he was not covered by the term 'marginal farmer' as there should be two conditions, (i) holding agricultural land not exceeding half hectare, (ii) personally cultivating such land. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant urges that both the Courts have misread the evidence. Firstly, it is not essential that on the date of commencement of the Act, only the holding should be of a marginal farmer. He could be marginal farmer at any stage thereafter, or even while execution is pending. That is sufficient to exempt him from recovery. Second argument is that the Patwari had proved as D.W. 1, a copy of Kistbandi Khatoni, pertaining to the year 1978-79 showing that this defendant Dhanna is holding only 0.334 hectares of agricultural land. He could be marginal farmer at any stage thereafter, or even while execution is pending. That is sufficient to exempt him from recovery. Second argument is that the Patwari had proved as D.W. 1, a copy of Kistbandi Khatoni, pertaining to the year 1978-79 showing that this defendant Dhanna is holding only 0.334 hectares of agricultural land. The defendant in statement as D.W. 1 described himself as having occupation as 'Kheti' and even in the plaint the plaintiff described the defendant as having occupation of agriculture. There was no assertions by the plaintiff-respondent that defendant was not cultivating the land and somebody else was cultivating his land and he was carrying on some other occupation. So the prepondence of evidence suggests that he is cultivating his land and this should have been taken into consideration by the Courts. It is argued that the appellate Court had taken too technical a view by observing that since defendant has not stated 'I cultivate this land', he must not be cultivating it. The argument has substance, when a person holds agricultural land and his occupation is 'Kheti', the normal inference is that he cultivates the land personally unless he follows some other occupation. 5. As against this, learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff urges that a person to become a marginal farmer must prove that he personally cultivates his land. If he fails to establish it, and merely proves that he holds some land i.e., half hectare or less, he will not fall within the definition of marginal farmer. 6. After taking into account the evidence of Patwari and how the plaintiff described the defendant's occupation in the plaint and how the defendant described his own occupation while making his statement, the inference is irresistable that he cultivates his land. So the farmer who hold certain agricultural land, and carries on no other occupation will be deemed to be cultivating the land. That is the spirit of this statute. Both the Courts below fell into error in finding that the defendant-appellant was not a marginal farmer. Their findings are reversed. Since the appellant is a marginal farmer, he is protected under the provisions of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam. The suit could not proceed. It is dismissed. The appeal is accordingly accepted. The parties are left to bear their own costs.