ORDER : This petition for revision arises out of a suit instituted by the opponents in the Court of Small Causes at Indore to recover Rs. 389-14-3 on the foot of a khata acknowledged by the defendants who the plaintiff allege were the owner of a firm named "Shivanarayan Ramnath" at Manpur in whose name the khata stands. It is common ground that defendant Onkarlal acknowledged khata in the year 1998 Samwat and Hanuman acknowledged khata for the other years. The suit was decreed and the defendants have come up in revision. 2. Both the defendants tendered a common written statement in the suit. They stated that the acknowledgment by one of the defendants was not binding on the other and Onkarlal therefore would not be responsible in any case. The learned Small Cause Judge held that the firm was a joint family firm and, therefore, the acknowledgments were binding. It was half heartedly contended before me that the finding regarding the firm being a joint family firm was not correct, but the defendant Hanuman himself had admitted the jointness of the family and stated that there was no partition and the contention has, therefore, no force. It was then urged on the authority of cases reported in 'Gaya Prasad v. Babu Ram', AIR (15) 1928 All 387 and Pangudaya Pillai v. Uthandiya Pillai', AIR (25) 1938 Mad 774, that the acknowledgment by Hanuman would not bind Onkarlal. In Allahabad case however it was a solitary transaction by two brothers of the Hindu family and different considerations would apply. In the Madras case the acknowledgment was made by a coparcener after partition when he had no authority to bind the other coparceners. The firm in the present case is a running merchantile firm and an acknowledgment by one partner would ordinarily bind the other. No circumstances have been shown to the contrary, but on the other hand the signatures of Hanuman after that of Onkarlal would indicate Hanuman's acquiescence and likewise continuance of the business of the firm under the management of Hanuman would bind Onkarlal. It was then contended that in any case relief under the Money Lenders' Act should have been given to the defendants. It was then contended that in any case relief under the Money Lenders' Act should have been given to the defendants. One of the defendants is a recorded pattedar tenant and it may be assumed that the patta enures for the benefit of the joint family, but to attract the provisions of the Money Lender's Act it must be proved that the person claiming the benefit is an agriculturist. Hanuman has stated that he derives his income from agriculture, but this is belied by the fact that he has an interest in business too, and his contradictory statements in the plaint and in evidence makes him unworthy of belief. There is no evidence that either of the brothers is actually the tiller of the soil and the benefit of the Money Lender's Act cannot be claimed by them. The petition is dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.