Mohan Lal vs Dwarkanath Kuldip Kumar

(1) This revision petition which is second in succession, arises in the circumstances which presently follow :

(2) The respondent firm has .brought a suit for recovery of certain amount against another concern Messrs Mohan Lal Bodhraj, which is or was a

trading firm having Mohan Lal and Bodhraj petitioners as its partners. The amount sued for is alleged to be the balance of the price of the goods,

supplied by the respondent firm to the petitioners, firm during the course of some business transactions. One of the pleas taken in the written

statement was, that the petitioners were agriculturists within the meaning of Section 2 (1) of the Agriculturist's Relief Act (Act No. I) of 1983,

(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). An issue was accordingly raised and evidence recorded on it. This issue was eventually found against

the petitioners and it was held that the principal source of the petitioners' livelihood was trade and business as such they were not agriculturists

within the meaning of Sec : (1) of the Act. The petitioners challenged this order of the trial court in a revision petition. Chief Justice Ansari, who

heard the revision petition, being of the opinion, that Section 2 (1) of the Act which ran into two parts, might still cover the case of the petitioners

by virtue of its second part, accepted the revision petition and remitted the case back to the trial court to give its finding as to whether the

petitioners were Agriculturists within the meaning of the second part of Section 2 (1) of the Act The trial court has once again held that the

petitioners are not agriculturists as their case is not covered by the second part of section 2 (1) either. The petitioners have again felt aggrieved of

this order hence the revision petition.

(3) The finding qf fact arrived at by the trial court on appreciation of evidence, that the petitioners were earning their livelihood principally from

trade and business has neither been challenged before me nor is the same open to challenge in a revision petition. The only question which,

therefore, falls for determination is, what is the ambit and scope of the second part of Sec : 2 (1) of the Act which contains the definition of an

agriculturist ? Shorn of unessential's Subsection (1) of Sec : 2 reads thus :

(I) ""agriculturist"" means a person who, by himself or by his servants or by his tenants, earns his livelihood wholly or principally by agriculture or by

horticultural or pastoral pursuits, carried on within the limits of the State (including Illaqa of Poonch and Jagir of Chenani) or who, within such

limits, ordinarily engages personally in agricultural labour or such pursuits; and includes a Lohar, a Tarkhan, and a Kumhar who, within such limits,

is wholly or principally dependent on a share of the agricultural produce given to him on account of his services to agriculturists, in his ""capacity of a

Lohar, Tarkhan or Kumhar.

(4) On its plain terms Subsection (1) does consist of two parts The first part relates to those persons who earn their livelihood through agriculture,

horticulture or other pastoral pursuits irrespective of the fact whether or not they have any other source of income or whether or not they

personally engage themselves in cultivating land or gardening or tending sheep or goat etc. This class may well include an owner, cultivating the land

through his tenants as also a tenant cultivating the land himself. The owner of a tenant may be running even a regular shop or addition to it doing

some other business, yet his main income may accrue from agriculture. He will be nonetheless an agriculturist within the meaning of the first part of

Subsection (1). Take again the case of an owner who gets his entire land cultivated through tenants, and himself regularly does some business, yet

his income from rents, and profits of the land may be far more than that which he gets from his business. He would nevertheless be an agriculturist.

The test under the first part would not, therefore, be what a person usually does but what is his main source of income on which depends his

livelihood.

(5) Turning now to the second part of the definition, a person who ordinarily engages personally in agricultural labour would also be an agriculturist,

whether or not, his income from agricultural labour is his main source of livelihood. This definition may rightly include the case of a person who

earns from other sources alsoand may be a little morebut himself ordinarily engages in agricultural pursuits. This part is meaningfully silent about the

income of a person claiming to be an agriculturist. What is determinative of his status is not his income but the fact whether or not he ordinarily

engages personally in agricultural labour, His personal physical involvement in agricultural labour under this part of the definition is imperative. What

does then the expression ""ordinarily engages personally in agricultural labour"" imply ? The word Ordinarily' has been defied in the Webster's Third

International Dictionary as : in on ordinary manner ; in the ordinary course of events; and usually. It is a common place knowledge that persons

belonging to agricultural class habitually engage themselves in agricultural work in fields almost during the whole year. Their work is not just casual

or desultory but is on the other hand a matter of daily routine. Keeping in view the object of the Act, which is to relieve the agriculturist class from

indebtedness 'usually' must be accepted as the most appropriate meaning of the word ""Ordinarily"" and usually means habitually as distinct from

casually. Likewise the words 'agricultural labour' occurring in the expression have to be construed in their generic sense which should imply human

toil or effort employed for purposes of agricultural production. Labour does not merely mean working as a labourer for wages whether they be

paid in cash or in terms capable of including in its ambit' owners and tenants of land who habitually engage themselves personally in agricultural

production. But a habitual engagement must again be a bona fide one To be more precise circumstances must exist, in which such habitual

engagement for the whole year or for most part of it cannot be normally helped, The total number of ""required working days"" in a year must be

such as would induce a reasonable man to infer that the person should normally remain busy in agricultural labour for almost the whole year. A

person who cultivates a small piece of land, for which the total number of working days required during the entire agricultural operations in a year

cannot exceed a few days or even a few months, does not ordinarily engage himself in agricultural labour within the meaning of the second part of

subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Act containing the definition of an agriculturist. The area of land in his occupation must' be large enough to

perforce keep him busy for atleast a major portion of the year in agricultural work. The test has to be therefore not whether he engages himself in

agricultural labour for the whole or most part of the year but whether he could normally avoid keeping himself personally engaged in the agricultural

labour during the said period. Each case has to be decided on its peculiar facts, though size or area of the land may be invariably a decisive factor

in each case.

(6) In the instant case, as already noticed, the petitioners are cultivating a little less than 2 kanals of land. The total number of days required for

cultivating it during the entire agricultural operations in a year should not ordinarily exceed a month. Their work in the field, as such, cannot be but

casual or desultory. This inference is easily deducible from the finding of fact arrived at by the trial court, even though, as rightly contended by Mr.

Sehgal it has clearly gone wrong in holding that the principal source of income alone is a decisive factor under the second part of Subsection (1) as

well. If this interpretation is accepted as correct, then the second part of Subsection (1) becomes clearly redundant, which is neither possible to

hold on reading the subsection as a whole nor such an intention can be attributed to the legislature. It is, thus, impossible to hold that the petitioners

ordinarily engage personally in agricultural labour and are, as such, agriculturist within the meaning of Subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Act.

(7) In the result the revision petition fails which is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners shall pay Rs.150/ as costs to the respondent in this

petition.