JUDGMENT Misra and adeley, JJ. - Gokul Chand Appellant in these appeals is an agriculturist within the meaning, of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act. Benarsi Lal who is Respondent in both appeals, had filed two suits in 1936 and had obtained decrees therein against Gokul Chand. The first of these was a simple money decree based upon a mortgage executed on 14th August 1922. The second was an ordinary sale decree on the foot of a subsequent mortgage executed on 21st September, 1928. In 1943 Gokul Chand applied for amendment of the aforesaid decrees u/s 8 of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act (Ac. XIII of 1940). The Courts below found that the Appellant was an agriculturist at the date of the mortgage suits as well as at the date of his applications for amendment but not at the time when he borrowed the money. They accordingly held that the transactions did not amount to a loan as contemplated by Section 2, Clause 9 of Act XIII of 1940, and since amendment u/s 8 was permissible only in respect of decree passed in suits to which the Act applied, and since the Act does not apply to suns or proceedings which did not relare to a "loan" they refused to amend the decrees. 2. Two appeals have been preferred by Gokul Chand against the order of the learned District Judge Fyzabad and the sole point for determination is whether the transaction fell within the definition of loan. 2. Two appeals have been preferred by Gokul Chand against the order of the learned District Judge Fyzabad and the sole point for determination is whether the transaction fell within the definition of loan. The definition runs thus: Loan means an advance in cash or kind made before the first day of June 1940, recoverable from an agriculturist or a workman or from any such person and other persons jointly or from the properly of an agriculturist or workman and includes any transaction Which in substance amounts to such advance, but does not include an advance the liability for the repayment of which has by a contract with the borrower or his heir or successor, or by sale in execution of a decree, been transferred to another person or an advance by the Central or Provincial Government or by a local authority authorised by the Provincial Government to make advance or by a co-operative society or by a scheduled bank; Provided that an advance recoverable from any agriculturist or from an agriculturist and other persons jointly shall not be deemed to be a loan for the purposes of this Act unless such advance was made to an agriculturist or to an agriculturist and other persons jointly. 3. In Tajatnmul Husaitt Khan v. Amiruddin 1941 O.A. 951 : A.W.R. (Rev.) 1078 : O.W.N. 1239. a Division Bench of this Court expressed the opinion that where a mortgagor was not an agriculturist at the date of the mortgage the Act does not apply. We are in general agreement with this view. 4. The definition, it is clear, covers three classes of cases 1. Where the advance was recoverable from an agriculturist or a workman, 2. Where it was recoverable jointly from an agriculturist or a workman and others-persons and 3. Where it was recoverable from the property of an agriculturist or a workman. 5. The proviso appended to the Sub-section refers to first two classes of transactions only, and except in case of a workman debtor it requires the applicant to prove that he was an agriculturist when the advance was made. Where it was recoverable from the property of an agriculturist or a workman. 5. The proviso appended to the Sub-section refers to first two classes of transactions only, and except in case of a workman debtor it requires the applicant to prove that he was an agriculturist when the advance was made. In order to obtain an amendment of the decree or the benefits of the provisions which afford relief in respect of transactions constituting a laon an agriculturist whose debt falls in the first two categories must not only establish that he filled that capacity at the time of the suit and the application but also on the date of the advance- It follows that the only case where he need not adduce such proof is where the advance was recoverable solely from his property. 6. It is urged on behalf of the Appellant that the proviso leaves unaffected those transactions in which the person as well as the property of the debtor is liable for payment of the advance, in other words where the transaction partakes of a dual character falling partly under the third category mentioned above and partly under the first or the second the applicant need not prove that he was an agriculturist on the date of the advance. In our judgment this is entirely unwarranted by the definition for if in one of the aspects of the transaction the applicant has to establish that he was an agriculturist at the date of the transaction it is immaterial that the law does not insist on proof of that fact so far as the second aspect of the transaction is concerned. In Mst. Ketki Kunwar v. Ram Sawroop 1942 O.A. (Sup) 643: A.W.R.(H.C.) 340 : A I.R. All. 390. a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had occasion to consider the effect of the proviso appended to Section 2 Clause 9 and the meaning which according to them it bears was stated thus In our opinion the meaning of Section 2(9) is that in cases where advance is recoverable both from the person and the property of an agriculturist in order to take benefit of Section 8 U.P. Debt Redemption Act, t must be shown that the claimant was an agrculturist both at the time when the advance was recoverable and when the advance was made. But in a case of a workman or in a case where the advance is recoverable only from the property of an agriculturist or workman, it is not necessary that the advance should have been also made to a workman or to an agriculturist. 7. The next contention raised on Appellant's behalf is that the word "recoverable" does not relate to the recoverability under the transaction or under the decree but to recoverability under the Act, and since Section 21 prohibits the passing of a decree over in a suit based on a loan secured by a first mortgage if the net proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property are found insufficient to discharge the amount due to the mortgagee, the advance must be held to be recoverable solely from the property even though under the transaction a personal liability was also undertaken. The contention, in our opinion, is wholly unsound. The provisions of Section 21 are not available unless requisites of Section 2(9) are satisfied, in other words unless the transaction to which it is sought to be applied is a "loan". Virtually what we are asked to do is to apply the Act in order to determine whether the Act is applicable or not? 8. No other point was raised at the bar. These appeals must, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed with costs.