Skip to content


Damodar Nandram and ors. Vs. Manubai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.264
AppellantDamodar Nandram and ors.
RespondentManubai
Excerpt:
dekkhan agriculturists' relief act (xvii of 1879), section 2, clauses (1) and (2) - application of clauses--definition of 'agriculturist.' - .....clause 1 and the other in clause 2. where a party to a suit is filed by or against him, the former clause applies. that is the case of the respondent before us. in the decision above cited the facts show that there it was admitted that some of the defendants were not agriculturists at the time of the suit, so that their case did not fall within the purview of the provisions of the first clause of section 2 of the dekkhan agriculturist relief act. but they sought to bring their case within the second clause, which gives a special definition of the term agriculturist for the purposes of chapters ii, iii, iv, and vi and section 69 of the act. the definition given in the second clause is not exhaustive, but is merely inclusive, and is intended for a special purpose. the defendants in that.....
Judgment:

1. The lower appellate Court has fount that the respondent is an agriculturist and on that footing has taken the accounts of the mortgage transaction concerned in this case. But is contended that the finding as to the status of the respondent is erroneous in law, because the Act applies only to a person who was an agriculturist when the liability in dispute was incurred. Reliance is placed in support of that contention upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahadev Narayan Lakhande v. Vinayak Ganagadhar Purandhare 11 bom. L.R. 721: 3 Ind. Cas 769 33 B. 504. That decision applies to a state of facts different from the present and lays down no such proposition as is contended for Section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturist' Relief Act gives two definitions of the term 'agriculturist,' one in Clause 1 and the other in Clause 2. Where a party to a suit is filed by or against him, the former clause applies. That is the case of the respondent before us. In the decision above cited the facts show that there it was admitted that some of the defendants were not agriculturists at the time of the suit, so that their case did not fall within the purview of the provisions of the first clause of Section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturist Relief Act. But they sought to bring their case within the second clause, which gives a special definition of the term agriculturist for the purposes of Chapters II, III, IV, and VI and Section 69 of the Act. The definition given in the second clause is not exhaustive, but is merely inclusive, and is intended for a special purpose. The defendants in that case wanted to have the benefit of that contention that the decision held that the case of those defendants did not fall within the second clause. They never intended to lay down the proposition of law which is now contended for by the learned pleader for the appellant before us that a party to a suit is not entitled to the privileges of an agriculturist under the Act if he was not an agriculturist at the time the liability in question was incurred, even though it may be that he is an agriculturist within the meaning of the first clause of Section 2 at the time of the Suit.

2. We confirm the decree with costs.


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