N.G. Chandavarkar, J.
1. The Subordinate Judge found that although the appellants had ceased to be agriculturists at the date of the suit, yet they had purchased certain lands after that date, so that at the trial they were agriculturists in accordance with the principle, laid down by this Court in the three cases which he has cited, viz., Kondi v. Gunda (1882) P.J. 156, Padgaya Somshetti v. Baji Babaji ILR (1887) 11 Bom. 469, and Shamlal v. Hirachand ILR (1885) 10 Bom. 367. But although that fact was in favour of the appellants still it was not decsive of the case, because the appellants ought to have prove one of two things in order to entitle them to the provisions the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. They were bound t prove either that they were earning their livelihood wholly c principally by agriculture carried on within the limits of the district; or that they ordinarily engaged personally in agricultural labour within those limits. The first part of this definition the appellants did not attempt to prove. It is found as a fact by the learned District Judge that these appellants are no agriculturists. They are Gosavis-religious beggars. They wet following two occupations, one that of Gosavis or religion beggars, and the other that of agriculture, and therefore, the material question was whether they earned their livelihood wholly or principally by means of agriculture. On that point no proof was adduced. And it was not suggested that the: case fell within the first branch of the definition of ' agriculturist' in the Act. Nor could they take advantage of the second branch of the definition, there being two occupations followed by them. The question was which was the occupation which they ordinarily followed. They are Gosavis and the presumption in such a case would be that their ordinary occupation was that of mendicancy. On that ground the decree must be confirmed with costs.