Bind Basni Prasad, J.
1. A simple money decree was passed against Mihi Lal and Mathura Prasad. Both of them are 'agriculturists' as defined in the U. P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940. In the execution of that decree Mihi Lal made an application for apportionment of the decree in accordance with the provisions of Section 11, U. P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940, Learned civil Judge allowed the application and apportioned the decree half and half between the two judgment-debtors. The decree-holder appeals against that order. Section 11 of the Act provides as follows :
'In any proceeding relating to a loan due jointly from several persons any of whom is an agriculturist or a workman, the Court shall apportion the loan between the joint debtors and the provisions of this Act shall apply only to that part of the loan which is apportioned to the joint debtor who is an agriculturist or a workman.'
Learned civil Judge has interpreted the words 'any of whom' as implying that the section applies even when all the debtors are agriculturists. The decree-holder contends that no apportionment can be made where the debtors are all agriculturists and that the section applies only when some of the debtors are agriculturists and some non-agriculturists. This contention was repelled by the learned civil Judge.
2. The case came up before a learned single Judge. Sri Ram v. Firm Chandra, Sen Duli Chand A. I. R. (39) 1943 oudh 413, was citedbefore him by learned counsel for the decree-holder-appellant in support of his contention. Learned single Judge doubted the correctness of that authority and so the case has come up before this Division Bench.
3. There are two parts of Section 11. The first part casts a duty upon the Courts to make an apportionment where a loan is due jointly from several persons, 'any of whom' is an agriculturist or a workman. The second part provides that the provisions of the Act shall apply only to that part of the loan which is apportioned to the joint debtor who is an agriculturist or a workman. It follows from this that the provisions of the Act will not apply to the part of the loan which is apportioned to the debtor who is not an agriculturist or a workman. In the case of Sri Bam v. Firm Chandra Sen Duli Chand (A. I. R. (30) 1943 Oudh 413) referred to above, it was held that the two parts of Section 11 are not distinct provisions, but there is a connection between them. The section is enacted to enable the benefits of the Act to be given to an agriculturist debtor even when he is a co-debtor with a non-agriculturist. To achieve this object apportionment of the loan between joint debtors is essential. It is not the purpose of the section to provide for apportionment between joint debtors, who are all agriculturists as they are entitled to the benefits of the Act without any apportionment. To obtain those benefits it is not necessary that there should be any apportionment.
4. We agree with the views expressed in Sri Bam v. Firm Chandra Sen Duli Chand A. I. R. (30) 1943 Oudh 413. As the preamble of the U. P. Debt Eedemption Act will show, it was passed to provide relief to agriculturists and workmen only. It was not intenteded to provide any relief to non-agriculturists. Where a loan was incurred by agriculturists only, all the provisions of the Act would be applicable. By Section 11, the Legislature provided for a case in which an agriculturist may have joined with a non-agriculturist in incurring a loan. As the intention was not to provide for relief to non-agricultrurists, the question arose as to how the relief was to be granted to an agriculturist who was jointly liable along with a non-agriculturist. To meet such a case, Section 11 was enacted and it was provided that notwithstanding the contract of joint and several liability the Court shall apportion the loan between an agriculturist and a non-agriculturist. To the extent of the amount apportioned to an agriculturist, the provisions of the Debt Redemption Act would be applicable. But to the extent the amount was apportioned to the non-agriculturist, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable. The second part of the section which provides that the provisions of the Act will apply only to that part of the loan which is apportioned to the agriculturist-debtor leads us to the conclusion that the section applies only when the loan hasbeen taken by an agriculturist along with a non-agriculturist.
5. The appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Civil Judge is set aside. The objection of the judgment-debtor is dismissed. Both the judgment-debtors are jointly and severally liable. The respondent was not represented. We make no order as to costs.