Skip to content


Sheo Shanker Das and anr. Vs. Mohammad Hasan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1937All633
AppellantSheo Shanker Das and anr.
RespondentMohammad Hasan
Excerpt:
- .....regulation, 1795, shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist if the total of the rent and local rate annually payable by him exceeds rs. 500, and it is urged that this explanation must override the proviso. we are of opinion that this explanation has been added in order to explain the provisions of the main section, particularly (b), whereas the proviso is intended to exempt, from the operation of the limits imposed, certain sections and two specific chapters. there is nothing in expln. 7 to suggest that it was intended to apply to applications governed by chaps. 4 and 5 and other sections mentioned in the proviso. in our opinion, the explanation is subject to the (proviso so far as the applications specially exempted under it are concerned. furthermore, admittedly the applicant.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Civil Judge of Jaunpur in a suit under Section 33, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The question was whether the applicant was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. The Court below has found that the applicant pays a local rate under the District Boards' Act and also pays Government revenue, but has ignored the limits of these rates and revenues on the ground that the suit is under Chap. 5 of the Act and the limits have to be omitted under the first Proviso to Section 2(2). It is contended in appeal that, the Expln. 7 added to the section lays down that a person in districts subject to the Benares Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1795, shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist if the total of the rent and local rate annually payable by him exceeds Rs. 500, and it is urged that this Explanation must override the Proviso. We are of opinion that this Explanation has been added in order to explain the provisions of the main section, particularly (b), whereas the Proviso is intended to exempt, from the operation of the limits imposed, certain sections and two specific Chapters. There is nothing in Expln. 7 to suggest that it was intended to apply to applications governed by Chaps. 4 and 5 and other sections mentioned in the Proviso. In our opinion, the Explanation is subject to the (Proviso so far as the applications specially exempted under it are concerned. Furthermore, admittedly the applicant does not pay any rent and therefore Expln. 7 cannot apply, because it applies to a person who pays both rent and local rate and not to a person who is not a tenant at all. It is noteworthy that in none of the Explns. 1-6 there is any reference to Chaps. 4 and 5, whereas in Explns. 2 and 6 there are references to Chaps. 2, 3 and 6. It follows that applications which are governed by Chaps. 4 and 5 are completely covered by the Proviso and not affected by the Explanations. We accordingly dismiss the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C.


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