JUDGMENT Allsop, J. - The Court below amended a decree under the provisions of S. 8, United Provinces Debt Redemption Act, 1940. The decree-holder has Appealed. There is a preliminary objection that no appeal lies, but this is concluded by the decision of a recent Full Bench of this Court in the case in B. Manmohan Lal and Others Vs. B. Raj Kumar Lal and Others, AIR 1946 All 89 We must consequently overrule the preliminary objection. 2. On the merits, the question is whether the decree-holder, (judgment-debtor ?) who sought the amendment of the decree, was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. The decree which was amended was on the basis of a mortgage of joint Hindu family property in order to secure an advance made to the family. The judgment-debtor who sought the amendment of the decree was Zauki Ram. At the time when the deed was executed his brother, Sia Ram, was alive. Their uncle, Hulas Rai, who has since died and his two sons, Bajrang Das and Ram Das, who are still alive executed the deed together with Sia Ram and Zauki Ram himself. Zauki Ram at the time when fie sought to have the decree amended alleged that he had separated from Bajrang Das and Ram Das, but the learned Judge held that there was a presumption of jointness and that Zauki Ram had failed to prove that any separation had taken place. The learned Judge was undoubtedly right in placing the burden of separation upon Zauki Ram and he was also right in his conclusion that Zauki Ram had failed to discharge the burden. There are separate shares mentioned in the khewat, but it has always been held that this fact does not prove that family has been disrupted or that property is no longer joint family property. Zauki Ram admitted that all the members of the family filed a joint return for purposes of income tax. He also admitted that some money-lending business was still joint. The learned Judge pointed out that there was no evidence of the payment of profits by one member of the family to the other although they were shown in the papers as being lambardars of different mahals. We are satisfied that the family was joint at the time when the decree was passed and is still joint. 3. The learned Judge pointed out that there was no evidence of the payment of profits by one member of the family to the other although they were shown in the papers as being lambardars of different mahals. We are satisfied that the family was joint at the time when the decree was passed and is still joint. 3. It has also been found as a fact that the family as a whole pays al and revenue of RS. 2400 and that the local rate is one-tenth of the land revenue. If the joint family is to be taken as a whole it is obvious that it is not an agriculturist within the meaning of S. 2, sub-s. (3) of the Act. On the other hand, Zauki Ram's share of the land revenue is less than RS. 1000 and upon this basis the learned Judge has held that he is an agriculturist and is entitled to get the decree amended. In our judgment, the learned Judge is in error upon this point. It is true, cl. (d) of S. 3 of the Act says that a joint proprietor or a joint tenant shall be deemed to be the proprietor or tenant of so much of the joint property or joint tenancy not being the property or tenancy, as the case may be, of a joint Hindu family, as appertains to his share, but it is to be noticed that this provision applies only to property which is not property of a joint Hindu family and, consequently, once it is held that Zauki Ram is a member of a joint Hindu family and that the property mortgaged was joint family property Zauki Ram's status as an agriculturist cannot be based upon the terms of this provision. On the other hand, cl. On the other hand, cl. (e) of the section says : Where the aggregate of the rent and ten times the local rate, if any, payable by a joint Hindu family (i) does not exceed one thousand rupees, such family and every member of it shall be deemed to be an agriculturist ; (ii) exceeds one thousand rupees, a member of such family shall be deemed to be an agriculturist only if the aggregate of the rent and ten times the local rate payable in respect of his share and the shares of his male lineal ascendants and descendants in the joint family property does not exceed one thousand rupees. 4. Zauki Ram may be deemed to be an agriculturist within the meaning of this clause, but at the same time the wording of the clause suggests that a joint Hindu family as such may be treated as an entity. If there had been a separate decree against Zauki Ram alone, he would have been entitled to say that he was an agriculturist and could have got that decree amended, but where the decree was clearly against the joint Hindu family as such on the basis a mortgage executed by the members of the family in order to secure a debt advanced to the family, we think that the Hindu joint family must be treated as an entity and that it is only the joint family which could apply for the amendment of the decree. There was no personal liability against Zauki Ram and no part of his property could be sold in order to satisfy the decree. In fact it is true that he is not the owner of any specific part of the property although for purposes of calculation under the Act he is to be treated to be a cosharer to the extent of the share which he would get if a partition took place at any particular time. If the joint family sought the amendment it was bound to fail because the joint family paid a revenue of Rs. 2400. In our opinion, it would be absurd that one member of the family could apply for the correction of the decree upon the ground that he personally was an agriculturist and secure the same result on behalf of the whole, family which the family itself would be unable to secure. 2400. In our opinion, it would be absurd that one member of the family could apply for the correction of the decree upon the ground that he personally was an agriculturist and secure the same result on behalf of the whole, family which the family itself would be unable to secure. In our judgment Zauki Ram's application should be deemed to be one on behalf of the family, as undoubtedly it is, and consequently that it is not the application of an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. The result is that we set aside the decree of the learned Judge of the Court below and direct that the original decree as framed before amendment shall stand. The appellant shall get his costs in both Courts.