Purshotam Murlidhar vs Sitaram Balkrishna

Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.—This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree.

The only point for our consideration is whether the Judge has committed an error in his treatment of the contention advanced on the part of the judgment-debtor that he was an agriculturist.

The learned Judge did not permit the judgment-debtor to adduce all the evidence he desired in support of this contention, but he thought the judgment-debtor''s own statement showed conclusively that he was not an agriculturist. He relied in particular on that part of Section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists'' Relief Act which enacts that an assignee of Government assessment is not as such an agriculturist within this section.

A man is not excluded from being an agriculturist merely because he may happen to be an assignee from Government of assessment if in fact he by himself or by his servant or by the tenants earns his livelihood wholly or principally by agriculture.

An Inamdar even if he be, as Inamdar, merely an assignee from Government of assessment, still may earn his livelihood wholly or principally by agriculture in respect even of the land included within the limits of the Inam.

Thus an Inamdar who is merely an assignee of Government revenue may also have occupancy rights in respect of the lands over which he has these Inam rights.

We would refer in this connection to what was said in Rajya v. Balkrishna ILR (1905) 29 Bom. 415 : 7 Bom. L.R. 439.

Now it is clear that the Inamdar may have occupancy rights and in respect of those occupancy rights there may arise an income which would make the person who also happens to be an Inamdar, an agriculturist, within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists'' Relief Act.

This aspect of the case has not been considered by the lower Court.

We must, therefore, set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and send back the case to be tried in accordance with these remarks.

Costs costs in the proceedings.

We refrain from expressing any view at this stage on the question whether the judgment-debtor is at this stage entitled to apply to the Court u/s 15 (6) of the Dekkhan Agriculturists'' Relief Act.

Both parties at liberty to adduce evidence.