Beaumont, C J - (1.)This is an appeal from a decision of Baker, J., in which he held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the action having regard to the terms of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. The learned Judge did not express any opinion of his own upon the point. He dealt with the authorities, and came to the conclusion that, although the authorities were conflicting, the greater weight of the. authorities was in favour of the view that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the action, and therefore ho considered himself bound to adopt that view.
(2.)The question really turns on the construction of two sections of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. That Act provides in Section 3 that The provisions of this chapter shall apply to-(b) suits of the descriptions next here in after mentioned. Then it provides: The descriptions of suits referred to- are the following, namely: (w) suits for the recovery to money alleged to be due to the plaintiff on account of money lent or advanced to, or paid for, the defendant, or as the price of goods sold, or on an account stand between the plaintiff and defendant, or on a written or unwritten engagement for the payment of money not hereinbefore provided for; then, (x) suits for recovery of money duo on contracts other then the above and suits for rent or for moveable property, or for the value of such property, or for damages;
(3.)So far you get money claims only. Then (y) is for suits for foreclosure or for the possession of mortgaged property, or for sale of such property, or for foreclosure and sale, when the defendant, or any one of the defendants, is an agriculturist; and (z) is for suits for redemption.