Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1956 DIGILAW 2 (KAR)

N. SIDDALINGAPPA v. CHANNEGOWDA

1956-01-17

PADMANABHIAH

body1956
( 1 ) THIS is a Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner-defendant against the finding of the learned Munsiff of Tumkur on Issue No. I in original suit No. 742 of 1954 holding that he (defendant) was not an agriculturist as defined under the Mysore agriculturists' Relief Act. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the defendant and the respondent the plaintiff in the lower Court. Plaintiff's suit was for the recovery of Rs. 763-9-0 being the amount due under a pronote executed by the defendant in his (plaintiff's) favour. The defendant inter alia pleaded that he was an agriculturist entitled to relief under the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act, and the learned Munsiff found that the defendant was not an agriculturist. As against that finding, this revision petition is tiled. ( 3 ) THOUGH I have to agree with the finding of the learned Munsiff on different grounds, yet it appears to me that the learned Munsiff has not bestowed sufficient attention in dealing with the matter before him. The point for consideration was whether the defendant was an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2 of the Agriculturists Relief Act. In all such cases, before a defendant can be granted relief under the Agriculturists' Relief Act, the court has to he satisfied on the following points, they being, that the defendant is a Person who ordinarily engages himself in agriculture and that he was an agriculturist as defined under the act both on the date of the suit transaction and on the date when he actually applied for relief under the Act. The learned Munsiff has not specifically dealt with any of these points. The substance of his order is that the defendant's yearly income from agriculture exceeds Rs. 1,000 and that therefore he is not an agriculturist. ( 4 ) THE learned Munsiff would have done well if he had given definite findings on these points before holding that the defendant was not an agriculturist. The substance of his order is that the defendant's yearly income from agriculture exceeds Rs. 1,000 and that therefore he is not an agriculturist. ( 4 ) THE learned Munsiff would have done well if he had given definite findings on these points before holding that the defendant was not an agriculturist. ( 5 ) AGAIN, another serious mistake which the learned Munsife has committed and which has been strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that he has judged the income of the defendant on the basis of the old section 2 of the agriculturists' Relief Act, which provided that the yearly income of the agriculturist, to entitle him for relief under the Act from sources other than agriculture, should not exceed Rs. 500 and that his aggregate income from all sources should not exceed Rs. 1,000. ( 6 ) IT is unfortunate that the amendment of this section by Act XIII of 1953 was not brought to the notice of the learned Muusiff. Section 3 of Act XIII of 1953 provides that in Section 2 of the principal Act (Act XVIII of 1928) in the first clause for the letters and figures 500 and 1,000' the letters and figures 1,000 and 2,000' shall respectively be substituted. This amended Act came into force on 9-6-1953 and the present suit was filed on 13-10-1964 i. e. , long subsequent to the amended Act coming into operation. Thus it is clear that it is Section 2 of the amended act that had to be made applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 7 ) AS stated already, I think that the finding of the learned munsiff that the defendant is not an agriculturist has to be upheld on grounds other than those relied on by the learned Munsiff the evidence discloses that the defendant's total yearly income exceeded and exceeds Rs. 2,000. Admittedly he owns 400 to 500 areca plants, about 15 acres of dry land and 2 acres of wet land. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to him, he gets about 15 maunds of areca, 6 or 7 pallas of ragi, 2 pallas of hurali from the dry lands, 10 to 12 pallas of paddy from the wet lauds. 2,000. Admittedly he owns 400 to 500 areca plants, about 15 acres of dry land and 2 acres of wet land. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to him, he gets about 15 maunds of areca, 6 or 7 pallas of ragi, 2 pallas of hurali from the dry lands, 10 to 12 pallas of paddy from the wet lauds. As against this, the evidence adduced on the plaintiff's side is that the defendant gets nearly 60 pallas of ragi, 30 pallas of paddy, 50 maunds of areca and an income between Rs. 150 and 200 from other agricultural produce. There can be no doubt that the defendant has under-estimated his yearly income and that the plaintiff has over-estimated the same. From the evidence of the defendant, it is seen that he is not prepared to part with the present areca crop for Rs. 1,200 or Rs. 1,300. From this it is clear that the yield from the areca garden must be much more than 15 maunds of areca per year. Again it is too much to contend that the defendant gets only 6 or 7 pallas of ragi from his 15 acres of dry land and that he gets only 10 or 12 pallas of paddy from bis wet lands. Considering the extent of the lands of the defendant coupled with the evidence on record, we may safely fix the defendant's areca yield at about 25 maunds per year, ragi produce at 45 pallaa at the rate of 3 pallas per acre and paddy at 20 pallas at the rate of 10 pallas per acre. If we calculate the total income of the defendant from these sources at the very rates admitted by him, i. e. , Rs. 45 per maund of areca, Rs. 20 for one palla of ragi and Rs. 20 for one palla of paddy, it will exceed rs. 2,000. On or about the date of suit transaction, according to the defendant ,areca was selling at Rs. 60 to 70 per maund. Thus there can be no doubt that his income exceeded Rs. 2,000 even on the date of the suit pronote. In coming to this conclusion, the income from the other crops of the defendant like cocoanut trees, tamarind trees and plantain trees have not been taken into consideration. Under these circumstances, I accept the finding of the learned Munsiff that the defendant is not an agriculturist. 2,000 even on the date of the suit pronote. In coming to this conclusion, the income from the other crops of the defendant like cocoanut trees, tamarind trees and plantain trees have not been taken into consideration. Under these circumstances, I accept the finding of the learned Munsiff that the defendant is not an agriculturist. ( 9 ) IN the result, this revision petition fails and the same stands dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 25. --- *** --- .