Fatta vs Qadir Wani

(1) This is a civil first appeal against the order of the learned Addl : District Judge, Srinagar dated 2981968 whereby the plaint of the plaintiff has

been returned to her for presentation in a court of competent jurisdiction because the learned Judge has held the defendant to be an agriculturist

and held that the suit was not as such cognizable by that Court.

(2) The brief facts that have given rise to this case are that the plaintiff appellant brought a suit for (1) cancellation of the document which had been

got executed by the plaintiff (2) for a declaration that the partnership deed dated 31st March 1956 registered on 1051956 was still subsisting

between the parties and (3) further for rendition of accounts arid cancellation of the partnership deed Among other pleas in the written statement,

the defendant had pleaded that he was an agriculturist and therefore the suit was not triable by the court of Addl : District Judge, Srinagar.

(3) Two issues No. 3 and 4 were framed about this contention of the defendant. Issue No 3 being 'Whether the defendant was an agriculturist and

was mainly dependent on the income from agriculture and issue No. 4 was if the above issue was replied in affirmative, what will be its effect on

the suit.

(4) After recording evidence of the parties, the trial court held that the defendant was an agriculturist within the meaning of Agriculturist Relief Act.

That finding is not assailed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. On the 4th issue however the learned Judge held that the suit was

tritble by a court invested with powers under the Agriculturists Relief Act and therefore ordered the return of the plaint for presentation.

(5) The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant has been that the trial court has misconstrued the section, the suit is not cognizable by a

specially empowered court under the Agriculturist Relief Act but by an ordinary court of civil jurisdiction. Section 3 of the Act has been the subject

matter of argument before us. This section lays down various kinds of suits to which the Act applies and they are (a) suits for an account instituted

by an agriculturist (b) suits, in which the defendant, or any one of the defendants is an agriculturist, for the recovery of money alleged to be due to

the plaintiff, or on account of money lent or advanced to or paid for, the defendant or as the , price of goods sold, or on an account stated

between the plaintiff and the defendant or on a written or unwritten engagement for the payment of money not hereinbefore provided for It is only

the last clause that can by any stretch of reasoning be made applicable to this case, The other clauses i e. (a) or first two subclausesof (b) have no

application to this case Ic is now only to be seen whether the suit of the plaintiff is for recovery of money on a written or unwritten engagement for

the payment of money It is necessary to keep in view the object with which this Act was brought on the statute book which clearly given in the

preamble of this Act, it say ""whereas it is expedient to relieve the agricultural classes from indebtedness, it is hereby enacted......"" So the primary

object of this Act was to give some relief to the agricultural who were then in a serious state of indebtedness. As earlier part of Section 3 would

indicate this was the primary scope of this Act to deal with transactions between money lenders and agricultural debtors. The definition of

agriculturist also is material because it provides that only such a person would be deemed to be an agriculturist who earns his livelihood wholly or

principally by agriculture or horticulture, or pastoral pursuits or who ordinarily engages personally in agricultural labour or such pursuits It excludes

from its purview businessmen and large scale commercial transactions. When we keep the object of this Act in view, regard being had to Section 2

and 3 thereof, we can very easily say that it was never intended to apply to big partnership transactions where there was no relationship of a lender

and a debtor but where parties invested money or other assets to carry on some business. When we read the plaint in this case, it starts with this

averment that the parties entered into a partnership for running a ricemill, a Grahat by means of diesel at Goshabugh, on the land belonging to the

defendant. The total investment was made by the plaintiff and Rs. 4000/ more were also kept by the plaintiff with the defendant for running this

business. So strictly speaking there was no relationship of a creditor and a debtor between t the parties in the case. Secondly it has to be kept in

view what are the reliefs claimed, the main reliefs claimed by the plaintiff, as has already been stated above, are that a declaration be granted that

the partnership is still in existence, second that some document which the defendant managed to get from theplaintiffs next friend, should be

cancelled or declare in operative and thirdly it is prayed that the partnership be dissolved and accounts taken and whatever in the shape of

machine, motor Grahat, shed and the assets will be found in the possession of the defendant be given to the plaintiff. It is further interesting to note

that the valuation for purpose of jurisdiction for the first two reliefs i. e. declaration and cancellation is Rs. 5000/ and Rs. 100 f respectively and for

cancellation of partnership and accounts the vaulation has been fixed at Rs. 100/. The valuation for the main reliefs fixed at a sum which is

exclusively triable by District Court. The rendition of accounts alongwith cancellation of partnership has been valued at Rs. 100/ which is triable by

a Munsiff. Therefore when the main relief claimed is not at all triable by a Munsiffs court or even by a SubJudge's court who otherwise has

jurisdiction to hear the case under the Agriculturist Relief Act, it would not be at all legal to return the suit for presentation in any other court

because in our opinion it is the District Judge alone who can hear a suit of this valuation.

(5) Considering all these points we are definitely of the opinion that the order under appeal passed by the Additional District Judge, Srinagar,

cannot be upheld and it is therefore set aside. Accepting this appeal, we remand the case to the Addl: District Judge, Srinagar with the direction

that he will proceed to hear the whole case and decide it according to law.