Harish Chandra, J.
1. This is an appeal from the judgment & decree of the Second Civil Judge of Meerut by which the plff.-respondent was given a decree against the applt., who was a deft, in that suit, for a sum of Rs. 11,067-13-0 on the foot of a simple mortgage bond, dated 30-10-1981. The appellant claimed the benefit of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act (U. P. Act XIII  of 1940) & certain provisions of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, (U. P. Act XXVII  of 1934). The learned Civil Judge relying upon the provisions of Section 4, Debt Redemption Act, did not give him the benefit of that Act. Section 4 provides that the provisions of that Act will not apply to a suit for the recovery of a loan from an agriculturist where the creditor declares that if a decree is passed in his favour either for the whole or a part of the claim, such decree shall not be executed against the land, agricultural produce or person of such agriculturist. It would appear that the plff.-respondent had, in para. 6 of the plaint, made such a declaration & he, accordingly claimed that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the Debt Eedemption Act. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the declaration is a conditional one. But a perusal of para. 5 of the plaint shows that it is by no means conditional. The plff. no doubt, denied that the appellant was an agriculturist, but inspite of such denial he made the necessary declaration as required by S. 4 of the Act. It is further argued that in the present case the decree is in fact not executable against the land, agricultural produce or person of the appellant inasmuch as the suit was instituted after the lapse of a period of more than six years from the date of the mortgage & the property, which was the subject-matter of the mortgage consists o certain shops & a house in the town of Ghaziabad. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that Sub-section (1) of Section 4 applies only to decrees which can in fact be executed against the land, agricultural produce or person of an agriculturist & that it would be meaningless to permit the plff. to make a declaration in such a case as that that he would not execute his decree against the land, agricultural produce or person of the deft. The language of Sub-section (1) of Section 4, however, is very general & does not warrant any limitation as to the meaning of the word 'decree' as used in that sub-section. In the caee of Bishambhar Nath v. Radhey Shiam A. I. R. (29) 1942 ALL. 252 a similar point arose although the case was under Sub-section (3) of Section 4. It will be noted that Sub-section (3) also contains a somewhat similar provision & provides that no decree recoverable from an agriculturist shall be amended under the provisions of the Act if the creditor declares that such decree shall not be executed against the land, agricultural produce or person of such agriculturist. Ganga Nath J. held that the section applied to every decree, recoverable from an agriculturist & would apply to decrees which were not executable against the land, agricultural produce or person of an agriculturist. The same view was followed by the Oudh Chief Court in the Division Bench case of Narain Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal A. I. R. (32) 1945 Oudh 19. The judgment was delivered by Ghulam Hasan & Madeley JJ. & they make the following observations :
'The object of the Act seems to be the saying of the persons of agriculturists from arrest & their land & produce from a seizure. Therefore, it enacted that if the creditors would not give up their rights of realising money against land, agricultural produce & the person of agriculturists, the decree should be amended so as to reduce the amount of the debt. If this was their object, there would be no need to reduce the amount of the debt when those three things were safe.'
We entirely agree with these observations. When a deft., although an agriculturist, is not entitledto the benefit of the Debt Redemption Act in the case of a decree which can be executed against his land, agricultural produce or person on a declaration being made by the plff. that he would not so execute it, there is no logical reason for giving him the benefit of the Act when a decree is, from its very nature, not executable against his land, agricultural produce or person & gives him the protection which it is the intention of the Act to give to all agriculturist debtors.
2. No other point is pressed before us.
3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.