Skip to content


Kashinath Ramchandra Potnis Vs. Vinayak Gangadhar Bhat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal No. 70 of 1910
Judge
Reported in(1911)13BOMLR242
AppellantKashinath Ramchandra Potnis
RespondentVinayak Gangadhar Bhat
Excerpt:
.....of government revenue.;the income derived from tenants by an inamdar, who is the assignee of government revenue, cannot be taken into consideration in estimating whether or not he earns his livelihood wholly or principally by agriculture, for the purposes of determining whether he is an agriculturist as defined by section 2 of the dekkhan agriculturists' relief act, 1879. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe ..........an assignee of government as such. we have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the object of the legislature was to exclude mortgagees, to the extent to which their income is derived from their rights as mortgagees, from claiming the special benefit of the act, and therefore we are forced to the conclusion that the legislature also intended to exclude assignees of government assessment in that capacity from claiming the benefit of the act.4. in the case before us, therefore, the receipts of agricultural income attributable to the position of the applicant as inamdar must be excluded from consideration; and in this view the conclusion arrived at by the subordinate judge that the applicant is not an agriculturist is correct.5. we dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.

1. The question that we have to decide in this case is whether the income derived from tenants by an Inamdar which is to a certain extent attributable to the fact that he is the assignee of Government revenue and therefore does not have to pay over a portion of that income to Government but may keep it for himself, can be taken into consideration in estimating whether or not he earns his livelihood wholly or principally by agriculture and therefore is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.

2. The answer to the question depends upon what force is to be attributed to explanation (b) of the definition in Section 2. That explanation says 'an assignee of Government assessment or a mortgagee is not as such an agriculturist within this definition.'

3. Now, we think, it is clear that if the object of that explanation was to exclude the consideration of the income of a mortgagee as such it must also have been the intention to exclude the consideration of the income of an assignee of Government as such. We have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the object of the legislature was to exclude mortgagees, to the extent to which their income is derived from their rights as mortgagees, from claiming the special benefit of the Act, and therefore we are forced to the conclusion that the legislature also intended to exclude assignees of Government assessment in that capacity from claiming the benefit of the Act.

4. In the case before us, therefore, the receipts of agricultural income attributable to the position of the applicant as Inamdar must be excluded from consideration; and in this view the conclusion arrived at by the Subordinate Judge that the applicant is not an agriculturist is correct.

5. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //