Skip to content


Kedar Prasad and ors. Vs. Suraj NaraIn Sinha - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938All128
AppellantKedar Prasad and ors.
RespondentSuraj NaraIn Sinha
Excerpt:
- .....court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. there were three defendants members of a joint family and they produced a copy of the khatauni which showed that two of them were entered as tenants in 1342f. (1935-36) of an occupancy tenancy. the point was raised that defendant 3 was not an agriculturist as his name was not recorded. in the trial court reliance was placed upon expln. 2 of section 2, u.p. agriculturists' relief act. that explanation however does not apply to chap. ii, section 3.2. it is however not necessary to resort to the provisions of that explanation because in the present case the joint family holds this agricultural holding and the rent of the agricultural holding is only rs. 5 per annum. section 2(f) defines as an agriculturist a person who pays rent for.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Bennet, J.

1. This is a civil revision filed by the defendants against an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Benares dated 13th March 1936 refusing to grant instalments to the defendants under Section 3, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The plaintiff brought a suit on a promissory note dated 6th January 1935 for recovery of Rupees 946-8-6 and the Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. There were three defendants members of a joint family and they produced a copy of the Khatauni which showed that two of them were entered as tenants in 1342F. (1935-36) of an occupancy tenancy. The point was raised that defendant 3 was not an agriculturist as his name was not recorded. In the trial Court reliance was placed upon Expln. 2 of Section 2, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. That Explanation however does not apply to Chap. II, Section 3.

2. It is however not necessary to resort to the provisions of that Explanation because in the present case the joint family holds this agricultural holding and the rent of the agricultural holding is only Rs. 5 per annum. Section 2(f) defines as an agriculturist a person who pays rent for agricultural land not exceeding Rs. 500 per annum (with the exception of a thekadar or under-proprietor in Oudh holding under a sub-settlement, with which we are not concerned). Now under the U.P. General Clauses Act, a 'person' includes an association of individuals and therefore includes a Hindu joint family. The Hindu joint family in question is an agriculturist under this definition. It is only in the case of a Hindu joint family where the rent paid by the joint family exceeds the Rs. 500 in this Sub-section (f) that recourse is necessary under Expln. 2, and if an individual member of Hindu joint family does not exoeed the limit of Rs. 500 for his share of the rent, then he would be entitled to the benefit of the various sections of the Act other than those excepted by Expln. 2. In the present case the Hindu joint family of the defendants is entitled to be treated as an agriculturist under Section 2(f) and therefore the family is entitled to instalments under Section 3, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff points out that the decree of the trial Court stated : 'I will however give instalments if sufficient security is given in a month,' and he argues that as instalments were granted there is no need for this Court to interfere in revision. But the granting of instalments by the trial Court was conditional on security being furnished and as a matter of fact counsel admits that the security was not furnished.

3. Accordingly therefore I consider that the case should be remanded to the trial Court and that Court should grant instalments in accordance with the provisions of Section 3, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, and I there, fore remand the case for this purpose. The defendants instead of applying in revision to this Court filed an appeal and obtained an order from the Appellate Court and that order was brought in revision before this Court and I have set the appellate order aside to-day as the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. It was in this connexion that the defendants filed an application in revision in this Court. Under these circumstances I direct that the par. ties shall pay their own costs in this revision.


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