1. The learned Judge in the appeal Court below has misunderstood the judgment of this Court in Dwarkojirao Baburao v. Balkrishna Bhalchandra 19 B. 255 in construing the word 'agriculturist' as denned in the Dekhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. He says that 'it is not necessary for a man claiming the status of an agriculturist under the definition in the Agriculturists' Relief Act to show that his income from agriculture exceeds his income from other sources.' That is not what was held in Dwarkojirao Baburao v. Balkrishna Bhalchandra 19 B. 255. In that case, as the facts show, when the suit was instituted the income from non-agricultural sources had become less than that from agriculture : and the Court held that, that circumstance brought the plaintiff within the definition. The judgment begins by pointing out that the expression 'earns his livelihood' can only mean obtains the means of maintaining himself. In ascertaining whether a man who has two or more sources of income, of which the income from agriculture is one, occupies the status of agriculturist as defined in the Act, the Court must take into account all those sources and ascertain whether the income from agriculture is larger or smaller than the rest. All the sources must be taken to be means of his livelihood, and, if the income from agriculture exceed the other incomes he must be held to be earning his livelihood principally by agriculture. That is the interpretation which has been hitherto placed by this Court in all the cases in which this point has arisen, following Dwarkojiruo Baburao v. Balkrishna Bhalchandra 19 B. 255. We reverse the decree and remand the appeal for rehearing on the merits. Costs to abide the result.