JUDGMENT 1. These are two connected revisions. They arise out of different suits-Nos. 1224 and 1523-in the Small Cause Court. In Suit No. 1224 the present respondent Kandhai Lal sued the applicant Ram Ghulam for a sum of money part of which he claimed was a loan and part of which he claimed was the price for cloth supplied to the defendant. The amount of the alleged loan was Rs. 137 and the price of the cloth was Rs. 63. 2. The other suit in the Small Cause Court was a cross suit in which the defendant Ram Ghulam in effect said that Kandhai Lal had borrowed a sum of Rs. 150 from him. That suit was really a set-off by the defendant against the plaintiff's claim in the other suit. 3. The Small Cause Court Judge tried the question and he came to the conclusion that Kandhai Lal had established his case against Ram Ghulam, but that Ram Ghulam had failed to establish the alleged loan by him to Kandhai Lal. Those are questions of fact which I do not propose to go into now and, in any case, they are questions upon which I should have seen no reason to disturb the finding of the Small Cause Court Judge. 4. Now, the principal piece of evidence on which the Small Cause Court Judge based himself in finding the debt by Ram Ghulam to Kandhai Lal established was the bahi khata of Kandhai Lal himself. We can take it for this purpose that the bahi khata was the plaintiff's account book in which he entered the debt due on the sale of cloth and also the debt due on the loan to him by the defendant. As evidence of the transaction that, no doubt, was quite satisfactory; but the question was raised as to whether it complied with s. 39, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. 5. Section 39, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act says: (1) Every loan given after the date on which this Act comes into force shall be evidenced by a written document, of which a copy shall be given to the debtor. 6. The learned Judge rightly pointed out that s. 39(1) did not require the written document to be prepared or signed by anyone in particular and that, therefore, any written document would suffice to satisfy the conditions of S. 39(1) of the Act. 6. The learned Judge rightly pointed out that s. 39(1) did not require the written document to be prepared or signed by anyone in particular and that, therefore, any written document would suffice to satisfy the conditions of S. 39(1) of the Act. Accordingly, he held that the plaintiff's bahi khata was sufficient for the purpose and he overruled Ram Ghulam's claim that the provisions of the statute had not been complied with. 7. The only question which is open in this revision is whether the learned Judge was right in holding that the conditions of S. 39(1) had been complied with. 8. Section 39(1), U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act is a piece of extremely vague legislation. It may be that it is deliberately vague; but that is a circumstance which makes it no easier to construe. It is quite true that no particular form of written document is prescribed. It need apparently be signed by no one. The only clues we are given as to the character of the written document required are that first it must "evidence" the loan; and, secondly, it must apparently be a document of which a copy is capable of being given to the debtor. The purpose of the section is, of course, obvious; namely that everything possible shall be done on the part of the creditor to see that his debtor knows exactly the obligation to which he is engaged and the terms of it. In other words, the section is designed to see that no advantage is taken of the agriculturist debtor. Those appear to me to be the only clues which there are to the true construction of the section. I derive no assistance whatever from the Rules under the Agriculturists' Relief Act which purport to have been made by the Provincial Government under S. 41 of the Act. Rule 12 of those Rules says that: "...The following documents will be deemed to satisfy the requirements of S. 39 of the Act...." and inter alia, the ledgers of a bank are included in those documents. But in construing the sections of a statute I can derive no assistance whatever from what the Provincial Government may have thought it proper to say should "be deemed to satisfy" the requirements of an Act of the Legislature. But in construing the sections of a statute I can derive no assistance whatever from what the Provincial Government may have thought it proper to say should "be deemed to satisfy" the requirements of an Act of the Legislature. The Provincial Government, of course, has not the slightest right by rule to specify that anything shall "be deemed" to satisfy the provisions of a statute, which does not in law comply with it. The rule-making power of the Provincial Government is strictly prescribed by what is consistent with the Act and it does not help the Court in any way in construing the Act to be referred to something that the Government has taken upon itself to say -with what authority I cannot conceive-"shall be deemed"; to satisfy the law. The question is not hat the Provincial Government by Rule says "shall be deemed" to satisfy the Section, but what on the proper construction of the section does satisfy it. 9. The question in this case is by no means an easy one; and, I think, is one very largely of first impression, I appreciate fully that the Legislature has not intended to prescribe any particular form of document or even to prescribe that it should be signed. But, at the same time, it does seem to me to be implicit in the section that the document should be something that has been brought into existence - not casually and for another purpose altogether - but for the purpose of constituting evidence of the transaction as between the debtor and the creditor. Now, in the case of a bahi khata or any other private ledger or account book that the creditor may keep, he, no doubt, goes home and makes, or directs his clerk to make, an appropriate entry in it for the purpose of keeping for himself a record of his own transactions. We do not know when that entry is made. It may be made at the time or several days or weeks later. It might contain a reference to the terms of the loans, such as interest and so forth; but it probably would do nothing more than to contain a figure in the debit column of the debtor's account. We do not know when that entry is made. It may be made at the time or several days or weeks later. It might contain a reference to the terms of the loans, such as interest and so forth; but it probably would do nothing more than to contain a figure in the debit column of the debtor's account. I have some difficulty in thinking that an entry by a creditor entirely for his own domestic purposes, in his own private accounts-accounts of which he would not dream of sending a copy to his debtor-can really be regarded as a written document which "evidence" the loan within the meaning of S. 39(1) of the Act. I think that S. 39 contemplates some document that is brought into existence for the purpose of constituting as between the debtor and the creditor the evidence of the transaction and of its terms, of which the debtor can be given a copy so that he may have a record of the full terms of the liability to which he has engaged himself. I do not think that it contemplates an entry in the creditor's domestic books for some other purpose altogether. As I have said, this is really a matter of first impression and it may well be that others might take a different view from this. That, however, is the opinion I hold of the proper construction of section 39(1). In those circumstances I do not think that the learned Small Cause Court Judge was altogether right in this respect. In this view of the matter, the suit would fail to the extent that the claim represented money borrowed. I think, therefore, that this revision must be partially allowed and that the result of the suit should be that there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiff, Khandhai Lal, for Rs. 63-12-3, less that proportion of Rs. 43 which Rs. 63-12-3 bears to Rs. 137, together with interest on such net sum at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the loan until the date of payment. Someone else must do that calculation. As regards the other revision, I shall not interfere in any way. 63-12-3, less that proportion of Rs. 43 which Rs. 63-12-3 bears to Rs. 137, together with interest on such net sum at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the loan until the date of payment. Someone else must do that calculation. As regards the other revision, I shall not interfere in any way. As to the costs, the applicant will be entitled to the costs of the Revision No. 423 which I have allowed, but will have to pay the costs of Revision No. 424 which I dismiss. Those will cancel out. In other words the simplest order as to costs will be that there shall be no costs in respect of the two revisions.