Skip to content


Firm Khincha Mal-hari Kishan Das and anr. Vs. Firm Khub Ram-munna Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1937All669
AppellantFirm Khincha Mal-hari Kishan Das and anr.
RespondentFirm Khub Ram-munna Lal
Excerpt:
- .....and as such were entitled to instalments. the learned judge has found against the defendants. it has been urged on behalf of the applicants that the suit was for a loan and that the defendants being agriculturists were entitled to relief under the agriculturists' relief act. the question is whether the price for the articles purchased by the agriculturist comes under the definition of the word 'loan'. 'loan' as defined in clause 10(a) of section 2, u.p. agriculturists' relief act, means an advance to an agriculturist whether of money or in kind. the price due for the articles purchased by an agriculturist cannot be regarded as an advance to him in kind. the suit was therefore not for recovery of a 'loan' as defined in the u.p. agriculturists' relief act. the defendants were.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ganga Nath, J.

1. This is an application in revision by the defendants against the decree of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Cawnpore. The suit was brought for recovery of Rs. 562-5-9 for the price of articles purchased by the defendants. The defendants contended that they were agriculturists and as such were entitled to instalments. The learned Judge has found against the defendants. It has been urged on behalf of the applicants that the suit was for a loan and that the defendants being agriculturists were entitled to relief under the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The question is whether the price for the articles purchased by the agriculturist comes under the definition of the word 'loan'. 'Loan' as defined in Clause 10(a) of Section 2, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, means an advance to an agriculturist whether of money or in kind. The price due for the articles purchased by an agriculturist cannot be regarded as an advance to him in kind. The suit was therefore not for recovery of a 'loan' as defined in the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The defendants were therefore not entitled to any relief under the Act. There is no reason for interference in revision. The application is rejected.


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