N SIDDALINGAPPA Vs. CHANNEGOWDA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This is a Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner-defendant against the finding of the learned Munsiff of Tumkur on Issue No. I in original suit No. 742 of 1954 holding that he (defendant) was not an agriculturist as defined under the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act.
(2.)The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent the plaintiff in the lower Court. Plaintiff's suit was for the recovery of Rs.763-9-0 being the amount due under a pronote executed by the defendant in his (plaintiff's) favour. The defendant inter alia pleaded that he was an agriculturist entitled to relief under the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act, and the learned Munsiff found that the defendant was not an agriculturist. As against that finding, this revision petition is tiled.
(3.)Though I have to agree with the finding of the learned Munsiff on different grounds, yet it appears to me that the learned Munsiff has not bestowed sufficient attention in dealing with the matter before him. The point for consideration was whether the defendant was an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2 of the Agriculturists Relief Act. In all such cases, before a defendant can be granted relief under the Agriculturists' Relief Act, the Court has to he satisfied on the following points, they being, that the defendant is a Person who ordinarily engages himself in agriculture and that he was an agriculturist as defined under the Act both on the date of the suit transaction and on the date when he actually applied for relief under the Act. The learned Munsiff has not specifically dealt with any of these points. The substance of his order is that the defendant's yearly income from agriculture exceeds Rs. 1,000 and that therefore he is not an agriculturist.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.