Skip to content


K. Mohamed Ali Vs. Govinde Gowda - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 35 of 1951-52
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Kant56; AIR1953Mys56; (1952)30MysLJ190
ActsDebt Law; Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act - Sections 138
AppellantK. Mohamed Ali
RespondentGovinde Gowda
Appellant AdvocateN.S. Narayana Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateH. Lakshmanaswamy, Adv.
Excerpt:
- karnataka co-operative societies act, 1959. [k.a. no. 11/1959]. section 30-b: [s. abdul nazeer, j]. power of the state government to give direction in public interest - impugned notification directing leasing out raibag sahakari sakkare karkhane niyamitha, raibag, belgaum district - challenge to held, section 30-b of the act empowers the state government to give direction to any class of co-operative societies generally or to any co-operative society or societies in particular if it is satisfied that in public interest and for the purpose of securing proper implementation of co-operative and other developmental programmes approved and undertaken by the state government. all the concerned co-operative societies to which such a direction is issued shall be bound to comply with such..........defendant can claim to be an agriculturist under, the agriculturists' relief aci, as this is not a suit for money at all, and secondly as under any circumstances it is not a suit for recovery of what is lent or advanced to the defendant.3. as regards the first point, according to the definition of money as given in the agriculturists' relief. act, 'money shall be deemed to include agricultural produce, implements and stocks'. according to 'practical standard dictionary' stock means 'various domestic animals raised''or used, as on a farm or ranch, specifically called livestock'. it is therefore clear that the word money as defined in the agriculturists' reject act includes also, livestock and cart used for agricultural purposes.4. the .next point for consideration is whether it could be.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Munsiff, Chickmagalur, in Order Rule 138 of 50-51 holding that the defendant-respondent can plead that he is an agriculturist under the Agriculturists' Relief Act.

2. The suit filed is for the recovery of some livestock including four bullocks and a cart of the value of the same. According to the facts of the case aft set out in the plaint they belonged to the defendant and. they were sold by him to the plaintiff. They were, however, left with the defendant for use in his lands as the defendant was a tenant of the Fame. It is contended that this is not a suit in which the defendant can claim to be an agriculturist under, the Agriculturists' Relief Aci, as this is not a suit for money at all, and secondly as under any circumstances it is not a suit for recovery of what is lent or advanced to the defendant.

3. As regards the first point, according to the definition of money as given in the Agriculturists' Relief. Act, 'Money shall be deemed to include agricultural produce, implements and stocks'. According to 'Practical Standard Dictionary' stock means 'Various domestic animals raised''or used, as on a farm or ranch, specifically called LIVESTOCK'. It is therefore clear that the word money as defined in the Agriculturists' Reject Act includes also, livestock and cart used for agricultural purposes.

4. The .next point for consideration is whether it could be said that the articles were lent, or advanced to the defendant. The tenor of the plaint and the reply statement make it clear that the articles were left with the defendant as he is a tenant of the plaintiff's lands for being made use of for the purpose of agricultural operation in those lands. But for the leaving of the bullocks and cart with the defendant, he had to make use of his own bullocks and cart for cultivating the lands of the plaintiff. According to the allegations in the plaint this is a case of the plaintiff having lent the bullocks and cart to the defendant and the defendant can, therefore plead in this suit that he is an agriculturist under the Act.

5. The revision petition stands, therefore, dismissed.

6. Revision dismissed.


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