JUDGMENT Paresh Nath Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule is directed against a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Birbhum, sitting as a Small Cause Court Judge. The Rule arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 720/- on a contract (Ext. 1) dated 23, Sravan 1357 B.S. corresponding to 8.8.1950. The suit was brought on the allegation that, under the contract, mentioned above, the defendant undertook to have the suit-land cultivated and fish reared in the suit-tanks as agent of and on behalf of the plaintiff and that he stipulated to pay half the produce of the land and half the fish, reared in the tanks to the plaintiff and to retain the other half as his remuneration. In the contract there was also a stipulation that in default of payment in the produce and the fish, the plaintiff would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 720/- per annum from the defendant. 2. The defence which has succeeded before the learned Subordinate Judge is that the defendant was, under the contract, Ext. 1, pleaded by the plaintiff, a bargadar and that accordingly, the present suit was barrec under the provisions of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950. The learned Subordinate Judge has accepted this defence and has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on this preliminary ground. The propriety of that decision is challenged in this Rule. 3. In my opinion, this Rule ought to succeed. 4. Under the definition, given in the Bargadars Act, [Vide Section 2(b)] Bargadar means a person who under the system generally known as adhi, barga or bhag cultivates the land of another person on condition of delivering a share of the produce of such land to that other person. The word cultivates in the definition quoted cannot be ignored and it certainly contemplates some self cultivation by the bargadar and an undertaking to get the land cultivated as distinct from an undertaking to cultivate the land will not normally or at least, in the absence of a proper context, be sufficient for the purpose. 5. The relevant part of the contract (Ext. 1) between the parties may now be set out for the purpose of ascertaining the status of the defendant. That part is in these terms. 6. 5. The relevant part of the contract (Ext. 1) between the parties may now be set out for the purpose of ascertaining the status of the defendant. That part is in these terms. 6. It is clear from what I have set out above that the defendant undertook to have the ka Schedule land cultivated, and there is no undertaking to cultivate it in the sense of any sort of self-cultivation second fish reared in the kha Schedule tanks as agent of the plaintiff. The language appears to be clear on that point. In this view of the matter and having regard to the further fact that the defendant had the status of a bargadar, the agreement was not only land but also two Tanks. I am not inclined to hold that the defendant had the status of a bargadar. The agreement (Ex. 1) clearly contemplates that the defendant was to get the land cultivated for and on behalf of the plaintiff and as his authorised agent. It is difficult to hold that the said language is consistent with the definition of bargadar, quoted above, which, as the word cultivates should, prima facie speaks of cultivation, or some sort of self-cultivation, of the land by the bargadar. I find nothing in the context of the tenor of the relevant document (Ex. 1) to depart from the ordinary meaning of the definition clause for purposes of this case and, accordingly, in the light of the definition, pointed out by me, the defendant cannot be held to be a bargadar. 7. In my opinion, the relationship between the parties was really that of agent and principal and the defendant cannot claim the status of a bargadar for the purpose of defeating the plaintiff's wit by invoking the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950. It is true that, at places in the agreement (Ex. 1), there is mention of the word bhag in connection with the defendant's (agent's) remuneration but, in the context in which it appears and reading the document (Ex. 1) as a whole and having regard also to the subject matter of the agreement (Ex. 1) which includes two tanks for rearing fish, I am not inclined to a1?ree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the defendant must be held to have the status of a bargadar. 8. 1) as a whole and having regard also to the subject matter of the agreement (Ex. 1) which includes two tanks for rearing fish, I am not inclined to a1?ree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the defendant must be held to have the status of a bargadar. 8. In this view of the matter, I hold that this Rule must succeed in part, the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge must be set aside and the case must be remitted to him to be decided on the other defence, raised in the written statement. The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute as above, costs of the Rule will abide the final result.