Lal Mohd.Bangroo vs Ali Mohd.& others

This is an appeal against an order passed by Bhat J. sitting singly on a preliminary issue which was to the effect as to whether or not the defendant

was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Agriculturists Relief Act. The learned judge after a careful consideration of the evidence adduced

before him, came to the conclusion that the main source of subsistence of the defendant was not net from agriculture but from business and other

sources and therefore he could not be said to be an agriculturist.

We have been taken through the statements of the witnesses particularly the witnesses of the defendant. One of the witnesses for the defendant,

Haji Rustum Sufi, while admitting that the defendant owns a shop called the Aero Sound says that this shop contains goods worth more than a lac

of rupees. This shows the extent of the affluent business of the defendant. It is true that the defendant has been able to show that he has some land

from which he gets agricultural produce, but it cannot be said that his main source of subsistance is from agriculture, in as much as the income of his

properties situate in the city far exceeds that from his agricultural land. For insurance apart from the Aero Sound shop which the defendant owns

he has several houses in the city which have been rented out to various persons and from which the defendant derives a yearly income of Rs.

1800/. According to the defendant he gets a net income of Rs. 1200/ even from the shop. Thus on his own admission the total income which the

defendant derives from his properties amounts to more than Rs, 3 COO/, where as his income from agriculture is hardly more than the value of 75

khirwars Further more, it is admitted that all the properties of the defendant including his agricultural properties are mortgaged with a Bank and

'therefore the question of the defendant engaging himself in agricultural pursuits does not arise.

Mr. Dar submitted before us that the defendant had adduced evidence to show that he had been ordinarily engaging personally in agricultural

labour or agricultural pursuits. All that the defendant has been able to show is that he has some lands which are being cultivated by him through

labourers. The expression ordinarily engages personally in agricultural labour occurring in S 2 (1) of the Act must be read ejusdem generis with the

previous clauses which defines an agriculturist as a person who by himself or by his servants or tenants earns his livelihood wholly and principally

by agriculture. Having regards to the object of the Act which is meant to relieve small agriculturists from indebtedness, it is manifest that the

intention of the statute was to give relief only to those persons whose main source of subsistence was from agriculture either through the income

which they received or through the agricultural pursuits in which they indulged The word 'ordinarily' therefore clearly connotes that the agriculturist'

main occupation should have been agricultural pursuits. From the evidence adduced in the present case it appears that the main income of the

defendant is from business.

For these reasons we are satisfied that there is no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. There is no force in this appeal which is

dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

Parties are directed to appear before the learned judge on 23769.