JUDGMENT Sinha, J. - This is an application in revision against an order of the learned District Judga of Shahjahanpur and arises out of an application for redemption, presented u/s 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, Act No. 27 of 1934. 2. The case came up as a second appeal before a learned Judge of this Court, who, however, found that no second appeal lay. He was requested to treat the appeal as an application in revision and be acceded to that request. He was of opinion that the question raised before him was one of substantial importance and has referred it to a Bench of two Judges. 3. The facts, material to this application, are not in controversy and are briefly these: One Azlzullah Khan granted a mortgage with possession on June 5, 1896, of the property in dispute, in favour of one Abdullah Khan. The mortgagor sold the equity of redemption to a lady. Mst, Afzali Begum, wife of one Suleman Khan. The applicant pre-empted the sale. He has thus stepped into the shoes of the original mortgagor. The Defendant is the successor-in-interest of the original mortgage. 4. In the application or the plaint, filed by the Plaintiff applicant, he said that he was an agriculturist and so was the original mortgagor. This allegation was denied by the Defendant. 5. The learned Assistant Collector, on the strength of soma oral evidence, found that the original mortgagor was an agriculturist and so was the applicant. He found the entire debt paid off and passed an unconditional decree for redemption. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the evidence contemplated by Section 24 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act was not led by the applicant and he had not, therefore, succeeded in establishing bis claim for redemption. Section 24 required some documentary evidence in proof of the character of the mortgaor, as an agriculturist, on the date of the mortgage. In the absence of such documentary evidence: the status of the mortgagor on that date shall be determined with reference to the entries in the record of rights or the annual registers prepared under the Land Revenue Act, 1901. of the year nearest to the year of mortgage for which they exist. 6. It is not pretended that the requirements of this provision were complied with. 7. of the year nearest to the year of mortgage for which they exist. 6. It is not pretended that the requirements of this provision were complied with. 7. The learned Counsel for the applicant, however, argues that Section 24, while no doubt requiring evidence of a certain character, does not shut out other classes of evidence. In the alternative, it is argued that, having regard to the fact that the allegation as regards the original mortgagor being an agriculturist on the date of the mortgage, was not specifically denied in the written statement, he should be given a fresh opportunity to establish that position. 8. To take up the first contention, the argument really is that the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act is an enabling measure and to hold Section 24 as exhaustive and rule out all other evidence, is to defeat the very purpose of the Act. This argument is, in our view, opposed to all canons of interpreation. It is due that it is a. 'remedial statute' and according to their Lordships of the Judical Committee in Raghuraj Sinhg v. Hari Krishan Dass 1944 AWR (P.C.) 44 The words of a remedial(sic) statute must be construed so far as they reasonable admit so as to secure that the relief contemolated (sic) by the statute shall not be denied to the class intended to be relieved, but, before a person can claim the benefits of the class, he must prove, by incontrovertible evidence, that he be ongs to "the class intended to be relieved", 9. Oral testimony may or may not be reliable and it is, perhaps, for this reason, that the legislature has taken care to define the evidence which must be adduced, before the clam can be entertained 10. The law on the question seems to be settled. We have the high authority of Crates that Another general rule with regard to the effect of an enabling Act is expressed in the maxim Expression unius est exclusiv alterius, Excress enactment shuts the door to future implict." If there be any one rule of law clearer and another, it is this, that where the legislature expressly authorised one or more particulers modes of dealing with property, such expression always excludes any other mode, except as specifically authorised."-(Craies on States Law. Fourth Edition, page 231. 11. Fourth Edition, page 231. 11. It is, therefore, obvious that he applicant was bound to comply with the requirements of Section 24 before be(sic) was entitled to any relief. 12. As regards the contention that the Defendant did not specificially deny(sic) the character of the original mortgagor, as an agriculturist, on the date of the mortgage, it appears to us that the argument has no merits. There was a denial of the a legation in the plaint But apart from it, the applicant does not belong to the class entitled to any indulgence. It a reference to the preamble is permissible, the Act was passed "for the relief of agricultrists from in debtedness." 13. The mortgagor, Azizullah Khan, was no doubt an agriculturst for whose "relief from indebtness" the Act was passed, but the applicant is a pre-emptor and a pre-emptor, certainly, cannot be called a person 'indebted'. 14. It is next argued that the applicant would have been entitled to the benefit to Section 9 of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act and this Act does not insist upon the requirements of Section 24. This argument loses sight of the fact that the application was presented un.der Section 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The requirements of that Act should, at the very outset, have been complied with, before a stage could reach when the applicant could be extended the benefits of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act. 15. There is yet another answer to this contention. The U. P. Debt Redemption Act contemplates only certain benefits; it provides no machinery for a suit or an application for redemption was presented under the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The provisions of that Act had, therefore, to be strictly followed. 16. It is also argued that the mortgage deed itself shows that the mortgagor was, on the date of the mortgage, an agriculturist. We do not see how this result follows. The mention of the property in the mortgage deed is intended only to secure the repayment of the sum advanced; there is no other purpose. Apart from this, there is nothing in the deed to indicate that the mortgage security constituted the entire assets of the mortgagor; he might have bad property other than the one embraced by the mortgage. 17. Apart from this, there is nothing in the deed to indicate that the mortgage security constituted the entire assets of the mortgagor; he might have bad property other than the one embraced by the mortgage. 17. Lastly, it is argued that the documentary evidence, within the meaning of Section 24, was the mortgage deed itself. We do not think that this was the intention of the Legislature. The mortgagor is not expected to give a list, in the mortgage deed, of the entire property owned by him. All that is expected of birr is an assurance that the security, conveyed by him is good security, free from all cloud. 18. The application, therefore, has no merits and we dismiss it with costs. Harish Chandra, J. 19. I agree.