JUDGMENT Singh, J. - This is an application in revision u/s 115 of the CPC. 2. It appears that an application u/s 12 of the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act was made on the basis of mortgage-deed executed on 10-10-1903. The applicant claimed to be the legal representative of the mortgagor and the opposite parties were said to be the legal representatives of the deceased mortgagees. Various contentions were raised but the only contention, which is material of the decision of this application, is whether it was open to the applicant to rely on oral evidence u/s 24 (2) of the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act. No documentary evidence, as required by S. 24 of the Act, was produced by the applicant, and the lower appellate court refused to rely on oral evidence. It is now contended that this view was incorrect. 3. S. 24 (2) of the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act is as follows: In cases in which the status of a mortgagor as "agriculturist" on the date of the mortgage is at issue and no documentary evidence is forthcoming to prove it, 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. 4. A perusal of the wording of this Sub-section clearly shows that it was the intention of Legislature that oral evidence should be disregarded and the status of the parties should, in the absence of other documentary, evidence, be determined only with reference to the entries in the record of rights or the annual registers prepared under the Land Revenue Act of the year nearest to the year of the mortgage for which they exist. These records have not been filed and the learned Judge was within his rights to refuse to rely on oral evidence. This view finds support in a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Matloob Ali Khan v. Nabi Rasool Khan 1947 AWR HC 147 5. No other point has been pressed in the revision. 6. There is no force in this revision and the application is, therefore, dismissed with costs to the opposite parties.