JUDGMENT : (V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.) 1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants/defendants 1 and 2 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 16.01.1991, in O.S. No.88 of 1987 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Markapur [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 in the said Suit. 2. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.40,098.90 paise as per the account filed by the balance of principal and interest of the loan facility availed by first defendant company. 3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.88 of 1987, are as under: The plaintiff is a Syndicate bank a body incorporated and functioning under the banking companies Act. The first defendant is the Venkata Ramana Saw Mill and Timber Depot and second defendant is the proprietary concern of the first defendant and the second defendant represented by the first defendant executed a demand promissory note for Rs.20,000/- on 07.10.1981 and also executed relevant documents and borrowed amount from the plaintiff bank and third defendant and fourth defendants stood as a co-obligants to the debt borrowed by the defendants 1 and 2 and defendants 3 and 4 acknowledged the debts and all the defendants executed relevant documents with the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff further pleaded that despite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendants failed to discharge their liability. The plaintiff bank further pleaded that the defendants 2 to 4 have jointly executed a promissory note for Rs.20,000/- which was sanctioned as a working capital to the second defendant undertaking to repay the same to the plaintiff bank or its order whenever demanded with interest at 6% p.a. above the Reserve Bank of India rate subject to minimum of 15% p.a. on 07.10.1981. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendants 2 to 4 executed a letter of authority in favour of the plaintiff bank authorizing the second defendant to operate or overdraw on the same pronote executed by them. Despite of several demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendants failed to discharge their liability and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit 5. Despite of several demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendants failed to discharge their liability and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit 5. The second defendant filed a written statement, the same was adopted by the other defendants. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the second defendant are as under: The borrowing of amount is not at all disputed by the defendants. It is also admitted that the second defendant is the proprietary concern of the first defendant mill and applying loan amount by the second defendant with the plaintiff bank is not at all disputed and the defendants are also not disputing about the execution of the relevant documents before the plaintiff bank. The defendants pleaded that they are the agriculturists within the meaning of Act 4 of 1938 and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any interest more than the statutory rate of interest and the interest claimed is usurious and they further sought the instalment decree and they further pleaded that they want to pay the entire amount on instalments and the suit may be decreed accordingly with costs of the defendants. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the defendants are entitled to the benefits of Andhra Pradesh Act of 4 of 1938? (ii) Whether the interest claimed is usurious ? (iii) Whether the defendants are entitled for any instalments decree? (iv) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the Defendants. 8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated 16.01.1991, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar, learned counsel, representing Sri Rama Rao Ghanta, learned counsel for appellants. None appeared for the respondents/plaintiff. 10. 9. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar, learned counsel, representing Sri Rama Rao Ghanta, learned counsel for appellants. None appeared for the respondents/plaintiff. 10. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on behalf of appellants before this Court, the following point would arise for determination: Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit and whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? 11. Point: The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the Syndicate Bank and the second defendant is the proprietor of the first defendant Saw Mill and Timber Depot situated at Darsi and the second defendant applied a loan of Rs.26,000/- and agreed to repay the same with interest of 6% p.a above the Reserve Bank of India rate subject to minimum of 15% p.a and the second defendant also agreed to hypothecate the machinery and stocks of the first defendant Saw Mill firm and the defendants 2 to 4 stood as a co-obligants for the loan sanctioned by the plaintiff bank and the defendants 2 to 4 jointly executed a promissory note for Rs.20,000/- which was sanctioned as a working capital to the second defendant and undertake to repay the same to the plaintiff bank with interest at 6% p.a. above the Reserve Bank of India rate subject to .minimum of 15% p.a. on 07.10.1981. The defendants 2 to 4 also executed a letter of authority in favour of the plaintiff bank authorizing the second defendant to operate or overdraw on the same pronote executed by them. 12. The instant appeal is filed by the defendants 1 and 2, the defendants 3 and 4 did not choose to file any appeal against the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. The material on record reveals that the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 admitted in the written statement about the availing of loan and admitting about their liability to pay the suit claim. The contention put forth by the appellants before the trial Court is that they are the agriculturists and they are entitled benefits of Act 4 of 1938. The fact reveals that the first appellant is a firm Venkata Ramana Saw Mill and Timber Depot, carrying a business and second defendant is the sole proprietor of the first defendant. The contention put forth by the appellants before the trial Court is that they are the agriculturists and they are entitled benefits of Act 4 of 1938. The fact reveals that the first appellant is a firm Venkata Ramana Saw Mill and Timber Depot, carrying a business and second defendant is the sole proprietor of the first defendant. The same is not at all disputed, therefore, the admitted facts are that the first defendant is a firm carrying a business and second defendant is the proprietor of the first defendant, therefore, the contention taken by the appellants that they are entitled benefits of debt relief laws is not holds good and also not tenable. 13. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the manager of the plaintiff bank is examined as PW1 and also relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. To disprove the evidence adduced by the plaintiff bank, no evidence is produced by the defendants. As per Ex.A7 account extract maintained by the plaintiff's bank, the defendants have to pay an amount of Rs.48,098,90 paise as on the date of filing of the suit. Further more, the entire material on record reveals that though the plaintiff bank demanded the defendants to discharge their liability, they are not discharging their liability. Furthermore, they have taken a bald plea in the written statement that they are the small farmers and they are entitled the benefits of debt relief laws. As noticed supra, no appeal is filed by the defendants 3 and 4, the first defendant is the Venkata Ramana Saw Mill and Timber Depot situated at Darsi carrying business of Timber and second defendant is the sole proprietary concern of the first defendant, therefore, they are not come under the category of small farmers. As stated supra, the appellants are not disputing their liability, infact they are admitted the loan amount and their liability. The contention put forth by the appellants is that they are the agriculturists, they are entitled the benefits of debt relief laws. As stated supra, the appellants are not come under the purview of small farmers as defined under Act 4 of 1938, therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. The point is answered accordingly 14. As stated supra, the appellants are not come under the purview of small farmers as defined under Act 4 of 1938, therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. The point is answered accordingly 14. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment dated 16.01.1991, in O.S.No 88 of 1987 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Markapur. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.