JUDGMENT Hamilton, J. (January 21, 1939.) 1. This appeal No. 11 of 1936 is an appeal from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gonda in a suit u/s 33 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. 2. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was an agriculturist and, therefore, decreed the suit reducing interest u/s 3o of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. 3. The one ground urged in this appeal is that this decision is incorrect in view of Explanation VII to Section 2 (2) of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. 4. The plaintiff is a zamindar who pays over Rs. 1,000 revenue, who pays over Rs. 120 local rates-in fact the amount is stated to be over Rs. 1,200- and who pays over Rs. 500 rent. But for these amounts he would have come u/s 2 (2) (2), (c), (d) and (f). 5. The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that Explanation VII which says that a person holding land free of revenue when he pays both rent and local rate shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist if the total of the rent and local rate annually payable by him exceeds Rs. 500 is subject to the first proviso which is as follows: Provided that in Section 2 (10), (a), 3, 4, 5, 8 and Chapters IV and V an 'agriculturist' means also a person who would belong to a class of persons mentioned in part {a) to (g) of this subsection if the limits of land revenue, local rates, rent and area mentioned in these parts were omitted. 6. There are a number of points to be considered and I shall consider them in what I regard as being the proper order. 7. The first point is whether for a person to be an agriculturist under this section he must come within one of the classes (a) to (g) and not more than one, that is to say, if he pays revenue he must not pay rent: if he pays rent, he must not pay revenue and so on. 8. I do not think that a person who comes in under more than one class is by this fact no longer an agriculturist. 8. I do not think that a person who comes in under more than one class is by this fact no longer an agriculturist. In the first place the Act does not say so and secondly Explanation VI, Explanation VII and illustrations 1 and 2 show that a person who belongs to more than one of the classes (a) to (g) can still be an agriculturist provided his annual payments do not exceed a certain sum. The fact, therefore, that the plaintiff pays land revenue local rate and rent do not prevent him being an agriculturist. 9. The next point to be considered is whether a person whose annual payment of either revenue or local rate or rent exceeds the maximum amount of any of these in (a) to (f) ceases to be an agriculturist. I hold that he does cease to be an agriculturist because otherwise there would be no reason for the first proviso, and this is also shown by the words in Explanation VI ''or if he is excluded from the definition of agriculturist under any of the clauses (a) to (g)" which is further illustrated by illustration (ii). 10. The plaintiff, therefore, is not an agriculturist under (a) to (g), and it is only if the first proviso brings him in again that he is an agriculturist. 11. Undoubtedly, Explanation VII applies to the plaintiff because he holds land free of revenue and he pays both rent and local rate and the annual amount so payable by him exceeds Rs. 500. This proviso is entered in the statute as Explanation VII, but the question is whether the word "Explanation" is a correct term, I have hot been able to find either in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes or in Beal's Cardinal Rules of Legal Interpretation anything about explanations occurring in statutes. I think indeed that it is doubtful whether an explanation should occur in a statute which, if properly framed, should require no explanation in it, and an explanation is really an interpretation which is a matter for Courts. The only doubt as to the meaning of Section 2 (2), up to, but not including the first proviso, would be whether a person who came under more than one of (a) to (g) would or would not be an agriculturist. The only doubt as to the meaning of Section 2 (2), up to, but not including the first proviso, would be whether a person who came under more than one of (a) to (g) would or would not be an agriculturist. If coming under more than one clause disqualifies a man from being an agriculturist the amounts payable by him in the form of revenue, local rate and rent do not have to be taken into consideration, If it is not a disqualification then the payment of rent, revenue and local rate not exceeding the maximum for rent, revenue, and local rate respectively would not be a disqualification. Explanation VII, however, lays down that a payment exceeding Rs. 500 does disqualify so that a payment of Rs. 120 local rate and Rs. 500 rent would disqualify a person from being an agriculturist although neither the maximum amount of local rate nor the maximum amount of rent was exceeded. Explanation VII has, therefore, modified the main body of the section instead of explaining it, and it should have appeared as a proviso or should have been called an exception. If it is a proviso it modified the provisos which come before it and would, therefore, modify the first proviso, and if it is an exception it is a complete disqualification. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant accordingly argues as follows: It is true that generally a person otherwise coming under one or more of (a) to (f) will still be an agriculturist for certain sections if he exceeds the maximum limit in any of (a) to (f) because of the first proviso, but the first proviso is superseded whenever Explanation VII comes in. Whenever a person who holds land free of revenue pays both rent and local rate more than Rs. 500 he ceases to be an agriculturist even if he pays less than Rs. 120 local rate and less than Rs, 500 rent, for instance, if be pays Rs. 110 as local rate and Rs. 39I as rent as this is laid down in Explanation VII. In such a case the first proviso cannot help him" because it only applies to persons who exceed Rs. 120 local rate or Rs. 500 rent or both. 120 local rate and less than Rs, 500 rent, for instance, if be pays Rs. 110 as local rate and Rs. 39I as rent as this is laid down in Explanation VII. In such a case the first proviso cannot help him" because it only applies to persons who exceed Rs. 120 local rate or Rs. 500 rent or both. The learned Counsel argues then that when such a man ceases to be an agriculturist it is only reasonable to hold that a person who exceeds the maximum of local rate or rent can be in no better position than the poorer man to whom the first proviso cannot be applied. 13. The learned Counsel for the respondent admits "that a person paying' not more than Rs. 120 local rate and not more than Rs. 500 rent when the total payment doss exceed Rs. 500 ceases to be an agriculturist. He argues, however, that this does not apply when there is a payment of local rate or rent above the maximum allowed for local rate or rent as then the first proviso comes into play. He points out that Explanation VI excludes for the purposes of certain parts of the Act persons who pay more than Rs. 1,000 as rent and revenue or a person who is excluded from the definition of agriculturist under any of the clauses (a) to (g). From this he argues that the exclusion of persons who pay more than Rs. 1,000 rent and revenue combined refers only to such persons as do not pay more than Rs. 1,000 as revenue or Rs. 500 as rent and if either of these limits are excluded the disqualification is under the succeeding words or if ha is excluded from the definition of agriculturist under any of the clauses (a) to (g). 14. He then asks that Explanation VII should be read similarly as if these words "or if he is excluded from the definition of agriculturist under any of the clauses (a) to (g)" occurred in Explanation VII. In the first place, these words do not occur there and Explanation VII has a meaning without these words being there. 14. He then asks that Explanation VII should be read similarly as if these words "or if he is excluded from the definition of agriculturist under any of the clauses (a) to (g)" occurred in Explanation VII. In the first place, these words do not occur there and Explanation VII has a meaning without these words being there. Further, it does not follow that his argument about Explanation VI is correct, for one can hold that the words or if ha is excluded from the definition of agriculturist under any of the clauses (a) to (g) are redundant because the main body of the section with the first proviso already introduces this disqualification, but the legislature wanted to make this clearer still. In my opinion Explanation VII is to the effect that once the maximum annual combined payment has been exceeded the payer is not an agriculturist, whether he exceeds Rs. 500 as rent or Rs. 120 as local rate or not and this exclusion continues even if he exceeds either or both of those maxima. The explanation, as I have said although so called,. is really a proviso or an exception and coming after the first proviso must supersede it when repugnant to it. 15. The Act is undoubtedly designed to make provisions for the relief of agriculturists from indebtedness, but the first part of Section 2 (2) defines an agriculturist and shows that generally only agriculturists of a certain financial status are to be benefited. It is true that for certain sections of the Act the first proviso" enlarges the number of agriculturists but it may well be that even this enlargement was intended by the legislature not to include those holding land free of revenue paying rent and local rate above a certain amount. Why such classes should be singled out I do not know, but when they are undoubtedly not agriculturists if they pay more than Rs. 500 even if they do not exceed the various maximum amounts of (a) to (f) it is difficult to hold that when paying rent and local rate exceeding any of these maxima they were intended by the legislature to be deemed to be agriculturists. 16. I would, therefore, find that the plaintiff is not an agriculturist in view of Explanation VII and the appeal must therefore be allowed with costs. Interest will then be throughout at the contractual rate. 16. I would, therefore, find that the plaintiff is not an agriculturist in view of Explanation VII and the appeal must therefore be allowed with costs. Interest will then be throughout at the contractual rate. Yorke J. (January 21, 1939.) 17. I regret that I am unable to agree with my learned brother's view in this appeal. 18. The question for decision is whether the plaintiff who is a zamindar paying over Rs. 1.000 as land revenue and paying over, much over, Rs. 12o as local rate and who also pays over Rs. 500 as rent is an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Agriculturists' Relief Act read with the first proviso to that section. I would put the matter as it appears to me on somewhat different lines from those which he has followed. In the first place it appears to me clear that the intention of the Act, as it is to be derived both from the preamble and from the general scheme of the Act, is that it is intended to make provision for the relief of agriculturists, both small and big, that it is intended to help big agriculturists as well as small is clearly inferable from the wording of the first proviso which removes the limits of land revenue, local rates, rent and area mentioned in the definitions (a) to (g) for the purposes of certain sections of the Act, those sections being sections which afford a very large degree of relief to agriculturist debtors. Secondly I am clear that in the light of the provisions in Section 2 (2) there is no general bar to combinations of qualifications for being held to be an agriculturist that is to say that an agriculturist may, subject to any of the explanations, combine the whole of the capacities (a) to (g), and yet be counted as an agriculturist for the purposes of the Act, and he may further be an agriculturist for the purposes of certain sections of the Act, the sections already referred to, in the same capacities but with the limits of land revenue etc. removed. There are only two explanations which seem to operate as limitations in this case of combination of capacities. These are found in Explanation VI and Explanation VII. removed. There are only two explanations which seem to operate as limitations in this case of combination of capacities. These are found in Explanation VI and Explanation VII. Explanation VI provides that "a person, who pays both rent and revenue, shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist for the purposes of Chapters II (except Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8), HI and VI, if the total of the rent and revenue annually payable by him exceeds Rs. 1,00O or if he is excluded from the definition of agriculturist under any of the clauses (a) to (g)". It is important to note that this explanation has effect only in respect of sections which are not mentioned in the first proviso. There is therefore no sort of interrelation between the first proviso which removes the limits provided in the definitions (a) to (g) and this explanation. I am very doubtful whether Explanation VI is really of any assistance for the purpose of interpreting Explanation VII since it definitely cannot have any operation whatsoever to exclude the application of the first proviso, and the real question which arises in regard to Explanation VII is whether the wording of that explanation is such as to preclude the applicability of the first proviso. 19. Coming to Explanation VII this explanation is either an absolute bar or it is not an absolute bar. If it is an absolute bar, then it is in contradiction with the whole scheme of the Act and it leads to illogical and unreasonable results. Secondly if it is an absolute bar, it should not have been described as an explanation but as an exception) or preferably it should have found a place in the section itself above the explanations, as a fourth proviso. As it has not found such a place, I do not think it is reasonable to interpret it as if it were worded "provided further that" instead of "Explanation VII". Now as to the illogical results which seem to me to follow from treating this explanation as an absolute bar, in the first place it may be read as contradicting the definitions (b) and (c) since it is obvious that a man who pays local rate under (b) or (c) amounting to Rs. 499 and rent amounting to Re. 1 is still within the combined maximum allowed by Explanation VII. 499 and rent amounting to Re. 1 is still within the combined maximum allowed by Explanation VII. From another point of view there is a similar incongruity. A pays Rs. 500 or Rs. 5,000 or even Rs. 5 lakhs as local rate. He comes under definition (b) or definition (c) assisted for the purposes of the important sections by Proviso I. B on the other hand pays Rs 500 or Rs. 5,000 or Rs. 5 lakhs local rate plus Re. 1 as rent, B on this line of argument is barred entirely. Thus there is on, this view a completely illogical exclusion of people who combine two qualifications, although it is not really the mere combination of the qualifications which excludes them, since it does not do so provided the combined total under the two heads does not exceed Rs. 500. In these circumstances I am strongly inclined to the view that Explanation VII is really, though described as an explanation, a sort of addition to clauses (a) to (g), and means no more than that, whereas by combination of qualifications (c) and (f) or (b) and (f) a man would be an agriculturist if he paid even as much as Rs. 500 rent in addition to the full limit of Rs. 150 local rate, by this explanation there is added a further limitation (similar to the limitations) in (a) to (f) for people who combine those two sets of qualifications, that is to say a limitation for the purposes of the sections not covered by the first proviso. I would therefore infer that if Explanation VII is properly so described and is to be construed as I have suggested above, it must necessarily be subject to the application of the first proviso. It may be that prima facie that proviso will not operate to help a person who has a combination of local rate and rent totaling between Rs. 500 and Rs. 620, but if this explanation is taken as a kind of additional classification of a like nature with those in (a) to (g), it would not require very much elasticity in the interpretation of the law to apply the first proviso to such cases even though not strictly so applicable. 20. 500 and Rs. 620, but if this explanation is taken as a kind of additional classification of a like nature with those in (a) to (g), it would not require very much elasticity in the interpretation of the law to apply the first proviso to such cases even though not strictly so applicable. 20. There is only one case on record in which this point has been at all considered, namely Sheo Shankar Das v. Mohammad Hasan 1937 AWR 605: 1937 ALJ 680 in which a Bench of the Allahabad High Court disposing of an appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11 remarked as follows: It is contended in appeal that the Explanation VII added to the section lays down that a person in districts subject to the Benares Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1795, shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist if the total of the rent and local rate annually payable by him exceeds Rs, 500, and it is urged that this explanation must override the proviso. We are of opinion that this explanation has been added in order to explain the provisions of the main section, particularly ( b), whereas the proviso is intended to-exempt from the operation of the limits imposed by certain sections and two specific Chapters. There is nothing in Explanation VII to suggest that it Was intended to apply to applications governed by Chapters IV and V and other sections mentioned in the proviso, In our opinion the explanation is subject to the proviso so far as applications specially exempted under it are concerned. 21. It is unfortunate that the remarks which follow in the next few lines clearly indicate that this was not a case to which Explanation VII was really applicable, and therefore the above remarks were undoubtedly of the nature of "obiter dicta". None the less they do express what appears to me to be a reasonable view of Explanation VII, namely that it is subject to the application of the first proviso. 22. On this view of the case the present appeal would necessarily fail and be dismissed with costs, Hamilton and Yorke, JJ. (January 21, 1939) 23. As there is a difference of opinion between the Members of the Bench, we accordingly refer this case to a Full Bench u/s 13 (b) of the Oudh Courts Act. Thomas, C.J. (October 5. 1939). 24. (January 21, 1939) 23. As there is a difference of opinion between the Members of the Bench, we accordingly refer this case to a Full Bench u/s 13 (b) of the Oudh Courts Act. Thomas, C.J. (October 5. 1939). 24. Bhaiya Lal Bakhsh Singh, taluqdar of Majhgawan filed a suit u/s 33 of the U. P.. Agriculturists' Relief Act in the Court of the Civil Judge of Gonda. The learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff was an agriculturist and accordingly decreed the suit and determined the amount on the three mortgages, Exs. 1, 2 and 3. 25. The appeal came up for decision before a Bench of this Court, and as it differed with regard to the construction to be placed on the first proviso to Section 2 (2) of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act read with Explanation VII to the said section, it referred the appeal to a Full Bench. 26. The word 'agriculturist" is defined in Section 2 (2) Clauses (a) to (h). Clauses (a) to (g) show that the word "agriculturist" means a person who pays land revenue, local rates, rent or holds land free of rent upto certain specified limits of land revenue, local rates, rent and area. 27. The plaintiff admittedly paid over Rs. 1,000 as land revenue, over Rs. 12o as local rates and over Rs. 500 as rent; he also held some land revenue free. 28. The learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff was an agriculturist because in his opinion Explanation VII to Section 2 (2) of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act was subject to the first proviso of the section. 29. On appeal to this Court Mr. Justice Yorke concurred with the above view, but Mr. Justice Hamilton was of opinion that the plaintiff was taken out of the class of agriculturists by the Explanation VII to Section 2 (2), which is as follows: When a person holding land in districts subject to the Benares Permanent Settlement Regulation I of 1795, or holding land free of revenue, pays both rent and local rate, he shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist if the total of the rent and local rate annually payable by him exceeds Rs. 500. 30. The question for consideration is whether the proviso should be construed as subject to Explanation VII or whether Explanation VII should be construed as creating an absolute bar. 31. 500. 30. The question for consideration is whether the proviso should be construed as subject to Explanation VII or whether Explanation VII should be construed as creating an absolute bar. 31. The contention on behalf of the defendant-appellant is that the plaintiff is not an agriculturist in view of Explanation VII to Section 2 (2) of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The first proviso lays down that: in Sections 2 (10) (a), 3, 4, 5, 8 and Chapters IV and V an "agriculturist" means also a person who would belong to a class of persons mentioned in parts (a) to (g) of this sub section, if the limits of land revenue, local rates, rent and area mentioned in these parts were omitted. 32. It means that the limits of revenue, local rates, rent and area which are to be omitted in determining the status of an agriculturist under Chapter V are the limits mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) of Section 2 (2). No other limits are intended as prescribed in Explanation VI or VII to the said section. In my opinion therefore it is clear that Explanation VII is independent of the first proviso and it is not an addition to clauses (a) to (g) Section 2 (2). The word "explanation" has wrongly been used. It is in my opinion more like a "proviso" than an "explanation". 33. There is no absurdity or ambiguity in the Explanation VII. Where the language of a statute is plain in itself, it is not open to the interpreter to add to it or to deduct from it or even to consider whether the rule is likely to create hardships in particular cases if it be read in its ordinary sense. The words themselves alone must be considered to see the intention of the law given. 34. I am therefore of opinion that Explanation VII is independent of the first proviso and the plaintiff is not an agriculturist. 35. I would therefore allow the appeal with costs. Zia-ul-Hasan, J. (October 5, 1939). 36. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Bhaiya Lal Bux Singh, now deceased, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, in the Court of the Civil Judge of Gonda u/s 33 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. 37. 35. I would therefore allow the appeal with costs. Zia-ul-Hasan, J. (October 5, 1939). 36. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Bhaiya Lal Bux Singh, now deceased, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, in the Court of the Civil Judge of Gonda u/s 33 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. 37. The appeal came up for decision before a Bench of this Court but as the learned Judges composing the Bench differed on the question whether or not the plaintiff was an agriculturist to which the provisions of Section 33 of the Act could be applied, the appeal was referred to a Full Bench. 38. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was a zamindar who paid over Rs 1,000 as land revenue, over Rs. 120 as local rates and over Rs. 500 as rent and that he also held some land, revenue free. 39. It was contended by the defendant (the present appellant) that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist in view of explanation 7 to Section 2 (2) of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. 40. The trial Court held that he was an agriculturist because, according to his view, explanation 7 was subject to the first proviso of the said section. On this finding the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and the amount due on the mortgage deeds in suit was determined. The defendant appealed to this Court and while Mr. Justice Hamilton was of opinion that the plaintiff was taken out of the class of agriculturists by explanation 7 to Section 2 (2), Mr. Justice Yorke concurred with the view of the trial Court in holding that that explanation was governed by the first proviso to the said section. After giving my best consideration to the question, I agree with the view taken by Mr. Justice Hamilton, though on grounds totally different from those on which he has based his opinion. 41. It appears to me that for the determination of the question before us it is not necessary to see what is the effect of a combination of qualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (h) of Section 2 (2), nor, in view of the clear wording of the section, is it for us to speculate about the intention of the 42. Legislature in enacting the different parts of Section 2 (2). Legislature in enacting the different parts of Section 2 (2). The simple key to the solution of the apparent difficulty lies, in my opinion, in the words "mentioned in these parts" occurring in the first proviso. These words clearly show that the limits of revenue, rent etc., which are to be omitted according to the proviso in determining the status of an agriculturist under Chapter V, (which includes Section 33 under which the suit was brought) are only the limits mentioned in the clauses (called "parts" in the proviso) (a) to (g) of Section 2 (2) and not any other limits such as are prescribed in explanation 6 or 7. It follows therefore that explanation 7 must be read as independent of the first proviso, so that even if a person is an agriculturist under that proviso he is not to be deemed such if he holds land in a district subject to the Benares Permanent Settlement Regulation I of 1795 or holds land free of revenue and pays both rent and local rate the aggregate amount of which exceeds Rs. 500. 43. There is another reason why I am of opinion that explanation 7 must be given effect to irrespective of the first proviso and that is a comparison of that explanation with explanation 6. Explanation 6 shows that though a person who pays both rent and revenue is not to be deemed an agriculturist if the total of rent and revenue payable by him annually exceeds Rs, 1,000 or if he is excluded from the definition of agriculturist under any of the clauses (a) to (g) this provision is not to apply when the question of the person being an agriculturist arises under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 or under Chapters IV and V, that is to say, in almost every case in which the limits mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) are to be omitted under the first proviso. No such exceptions appear in explanation 7. This necessarily leads to the conclusion that a person to whom explanation 7 applied is not to be deemed an agriculturist for any purposes of the Act, that is even if the question arises under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 and Chapters IV and V for which provision is made in the first proviso. This necessarily leads to the conclusion that a person to whom explanation 7 applied is not to be deemed an agriculturist for any purposes of the Act, that is even if the question arises under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 and Chapters IV and V for which provision is made in the first proviso. Had it been the intention of the Legislature that explanation 7 should be subject to the first proviso like explanation 6 the sections and chapters mentioned in the proviso would have been excepted in this explanation also as they were in explanation 6. 44. It is no doubt true that, as my learned brothers have pointed out, the term "explanation' does not properly apply to what has been enacted in explanation 7 and that that provision is more in the nature of a proviso to the first proviso than an explanation of the main section; but perhaps it was termed an explanation because like the other explanations it has reference to some of the clauses (a) to (h) of Section 2 (2). Explanations 1 and 2 refer and show the intention of the Legislature in regard to clauses (a), (d), (e), (f), and (g), explanation 3 to clause (d), explanations 4 and 5 to clause (f) and explanation 6 to a combination of clauses (a) and (f) Similarly explanation 7 contemplates combinations of clauses (b) and (f), and (c) and (f). When however the provision contained in explanation 7 is clear and unambiguous in its terms, we should not look to how it is designated by the Legislature. Nor do I think it is necessary for us to probe into the question why the Legislature deprived persons holding land in districts subject to the Benares Permanent Settlement Regulation I of 1795 or holding land free of revenue and paying rent and local rate exceeding Rs. 500 of the benefits of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. 45. I am therefore of opinion that as the first proviso refers only to the limits mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) and as there is nothing in Explanation 7 to show that its provisions are subject to that proviso, we cannot but hold that explanation 7 is quite independent of the first proviso. Consequently the plaintiff who held land free of revenue and who pays rent and local rate much more than Rs. Consequently the plaintiff who held land free of revenue and who pays rent and local rate much more than Rs. 500 cannot, in view of explanation 7, be held to be an agriculturist. 46. I would therefore allow the appeal with costs. Bennett, J. (October 5, 1939.) 47. This case has been referred to a Full Bench in view of a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court with regard to the construction to be placed on the first proviso to Section 2 (2) of the Agriculturists' Relief Act, read with Explanation VII. 48. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 contains the definition of the word "agriculturist" and the substantive portion of the definition is contained in eight clauses (a) to (h). The first seven of these, (a) to (g) show that in all sections of the Act where the term is used it means a person who makes payments of land revenue, local rates or rent, or holds land free of rent up to certain specified limits of land revenue, local rates, rent and area. 49. The first proviso extends this definition for the purpose of certain sections and chapters of the Act to all persons making such payments or holding such land irrespective of these limits. It reads:- Provided that in Sections 2 (10) (a), 3, 4, 5, 8 and Chapters IV and V an " agriculturist" means also a person who would belong to a class of persons mentioned in parts (a) to (g) of this sub-section if the limits of land revenue, local rates, rent and area mentioned in these parts were omitted. 50. There follow two more provisos and then seven Explanations, of which the first five only appear to be properly so called. The next two Explanations are : Explanation VI :-When a person pays both rent and revenue he shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist for the purposes of Chapters II (except Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8), III and VI, if the total of the rent and revenue annually payable by him exceeds Rs. 1,000, or if he is excluded from the definition of agriculturist under any of the clauses (a) to (g). 1,000, or if he is excluded from the definition of agriculturist under any of the clauses (a) to (g). Explanation VII:-When a person, holding land in districts subject to the Benares Permanent Settlement Regulation I of 1795, or holding land free of revenue, pays both rent and local rate, he shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist if the total of the rent and local rate annually payable by him exceeds Rs. 500. 51. The question for consideration is whether the proviso should be construed as subject to Explanation VII, or whether Explanation VII should be construed as merely adding further limits when certain qualifications are combined, these limits being inapplicable under the. proviso for the purpose of the sections and chapters stated therein. 52. The learned Judge of this Court who held that in view of Explanation VII the plaintiff-appellant is not an agriculturist, considered that the Explanation, though so called, was really a proviso or an exception, and coming after the first proviso must supersede it where repugnant to it. He thought that the Legislature may not have intended to include in the proviso those holding land free of revenue paying rent and local rate above a certain amount, though the reason behind this intention is not apparent. 53. The learned Judge who took the contrary view observed that it appears from the preamble and the general scheme of the Act that it was the intention of the Act to make provision for the relief of agriculturists both small and big. There were only two Explanations which seemed to operate as limitations in the case of combination of capacities, namely Explanation VI and Explanation VII. The real question which arises in regard to 54. Explanation VII is whether its wording is such as to exclude the applicability of the first proviso. 55. He considered that if Explanation VII is regarded as an absolute bar, it is in contradiction with the whole scheme of the Act and it leads to illogical and unreasonable results. Moreover if it is an absolute bar, it should not have been described as an explanation, but as an exception, or preferably it should have found a place in the section itself above the explanations as a fourth proviso. As it has not done so it was not reasonable to regard it as a further proviso. 56. Moreover if it is an absolute bar, it should not have been described as an explanation, but as an exception, or preferably it should have found a place in the section itself above the explanations as a fourth proviso. As it has not done so it was not reasonable to regard it as a further proviso. 56. The learned Judge then gave instances of illogical results which follow from the view that Explanation VII is an absolute bar. He said that: in the first place it may be read as contradicting the definitions (b) and (c), since it is obvious that a man who pays local rate under (b) or (c) amounting to Rs. 499 and rant amounting to Re. 1 is still within the combined maximum a lowed by Explanation VII. 57. He proceeded: From another point of view there is a similar incongruity. A pays Rs. 500 or Rs 5,000 or even Rs. 5 lakhs as local rata Ha comas under definition (b) or definition (c) assisted for the purposes of the important sections by proviso I. B on the other hand pays Rs. 500 or Rs. 5.000 or Rs 5 lakhs local rate plus Re. 1 as rent, B on this line of argument is barred entirely. Thus there is on this view a completely illogical exclusion of people who combine two qualifications, although it is not really the mare combination of the qualifications which excludes them, since it does not do so provided the combined total under the two heads does not exceed Rs 500. 58. He considered therefore that Explanation VII is really a sort of addition to clauses (a) to (g) and as such subject to the application of the first proviso, as held (though obiter) in Sheo Skanker Das v. Mohammad Hasan 1937 AWR 605: 1937 ALJ 680. 59. If the question could be decided by reference to the probabilities alone, I should be inclined to agree with this view. When the proviso allows persons who pay land revenue, local rate, or rent up to any amount Jo be treated for certain parts of the Act as agriculturists it certainly seems doubtful whether in the case of the combination of two of these qualifications it was intended to impose a bar which might in certain circumstances It ad to very illogical results Moreover Explanation VII seems to be complementary to Explanation VI. The latter explanation deals with a combination of the qualifications referred to in clauses (a) and (f), while Explanation VII refers to a combination of the qualifications referred to in clauses (b) and (f), and (c) and (f). Prima facie there is no reason why a different principle should be applied in Explanation VII from that applied in Explanation VI. But a different principle has been applied by the omission from Explanation VII of the words for the purposes of Chapters II (except Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8), III and VI, and the reason may be that these words were omitted inadvertently. This is, I think, more probable than that an Explanation which is found at the end of the section was intended to be read as if it came before the provisos. Had that been the intention it must have been also the intention in regard to Explanation VI and there would have been no need to insert in this Explanation the words for the purposes of Chapters II (except Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8), III and VI 60. But though I consider it not unlikely that these words were inadvertently omitted from Explanation VII, I do not consider it possible to hold that they must have been. It is possible that the Legislature had reasons, not apparent, for imposing a general limit applicable for all sections of the Act in cases of a combination of rent and local rate paid by persons holding land in districts subject to the Benares Permanent Settlement Regulation I of 1795 or by persons holding land free of revenue Some incongruous or illogical results may follow on a consideration of the limits imposed and possible combinations thereof, but incongruities occur not infrequently where an arbitrary limit is imposed, and soma may occur as it is even in the case of persons not governed by the proviso. For instance it might appear incongruous that a man who pays rent of Rs. 499 and local rate of Re. 1 should be an agriculturist, while man who pays rent of Rs. 499 and local rate of Rs. 2 is not. 61. I do not think that there is any contradiction between the Explanation and Clauses (b) and (c). The Explanation does not in my opinion make the proviso entirely inoperative. 499 and local rate of Re. 1 should be an agriculturist, while man who pays rent of Rs. 499 and local rate of Rs. 2 is not. 61. I do not think that there is any contradiction between the Explanation and Clauses (b) and (c). The Explanation does not in my opinion make the proviso entirely inoperative. It does not extend the limits given in Clauses (b) and (c) in the case of a combination of qualifications, and those limits will still apply except where the proviso comes in. That is to say, except where the proviso excludes the limits, the limit of Rs. 120 local rate will still apply. The example given above of a person paying Rs 499 local rate and Re. 1 rent and still being an agriculturist would only be possible under the proviso. Any other person paying Rs. 499 local rate, or any amount in excess of Rs 120 would be barred by Clause (b) or Clause (c). It is not therefore the case that where the qualifications referred to in the Explanation are combined the Explanation puts every one on the same footing. On the contrary it allows a person to whom the proviso applies to pay a much larger amount of local rate, if the amount of rent paid by him is correspondingly smaller. 62. The very fact that the words for the purposes of Chapters II (except Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8). III and VI have been omitted from Explanation VII may be considered indicative of the legislature's intention. The presumption is rather that they were omitted by design than by accident. 63. I would refer in this connection to certain principles laid 'down in Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes (Eighth Edition) and derived from English authorities. 64. Pages 3 and 4. When the language is not only plain but admits of but one meaning, the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise. 'Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget'. The rule of construction is 'to intend the Legislature to have meant what they have actually expressed' Where, by the use of clear and unequivocal language capable of only one meaning, anything is enacted by the Legislature, it must be enforced, even though it be absurd or mischievous. 'Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget'. The rule of construction is 'to intend the Legislature to have meant what they have actually expressed' Where, by the use of clear and unequivocal language capable of only one meaning, anything is enacted by the Legislature, it must be enforced, even though it be absurd or mischievous. The words cannot be construed, contrary to their meaning, as embracing or excluding cases merely because no good reason appears why they should be excluded or embraced. It is true that these principles appear to receive some qualification further on. On page 73 it is stated, Before adopting any proposed construction of a passage susceptible of more than one meaning, it is important to consider the effects or consequences which would result from it, for they often point out the real meaning of the words. 65. But this is on the assumption that the passage is susceptible of more than one meaning. 66. On page 202 it is stated :- Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence " It can hardly be said that the language of Explanation VII leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience, or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended. 66. Page 220. An omission which the context shows with reasonable certainty to have bean unintended may be supplied, at least in enactments which are construed beneficially, as distinguished from strictly. 67. It has been argued in the case under consideration-and I think with force-that an enactment which makes encroachments on the rights of individuals (in this case of money-lender) should be construed strictly. A large number of persons should not be allowed to take advantage of it than its language on a strict construction warrants. 68. Page 141. Where there are two sections dealing with the same subject matter, one section being unqualified and the other containing a qualification, effect must be given to the section containing the qualification. 69. A large number of persons should not be allowed to take advantage of it than its language on a strict construction warrants. 68. Page 141. Where there are two sections dealing with the same subject matter, one section being unqualified and the other containing a qualification, effect must be given to the section containing the qualification. 69. If the provisions under consideration were contained in different sections, there can be no doubt therefore that effect would have to be given to the section containing the qualification. 70. Reference has been made on behalf of the respondent to an observation of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Henrietta Muir Edwards v. Attorney General of Canda AIR 1930 PC. 210 that the question is not what may be supposed to have bean intended but what has been said. 71. In Aziz Ahmad Khan and Others Vs. Chhote Lal and Others the Allahabad High Court observed: Where the language of a statute is plain in itself, it is not open to the interpreter to add to it or to deduct from it or even to consider whether the rule is likely to create hardships in particular cases if it be read in its ordinary sense. 72. I do not find that there is any such manifest absurdity or such improbability in Explanation VII as to justify a construction not warranted by its apparent meaning. It is clear that the word "Explanation" is a misnomer: it is on any construction rather of the nature of a further proviso or exception, and since it has been placed at the end of the section it is natural to construe it as governing" whatever precedes it. This and the omission in it of any words of exception such as are contained in Explanation VI are in my opinion fatal to the plaintiff respondent's case. 1 would therefore allow the appeal with costs. Thomas, C.J., Zia-ul-Hasan and Bennett, JJ. (October 14, 1939.) 73. We allow the appeal with costs.