Mallappa, J. - (1.) This is a revision petition under Section 4. Sub-section 1 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Shi-moga, in C. Section No. 23 of 52-53 holding that the first defendant in that suit is not an agriculturist under the Agriculturists Relief Act.
(2.) It was urged in this case as is usual to urge in cases of this Kind that the revisional powers of this Court under Section 4, Sub-section 2 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act to examine the evidence and to interfere with the finding of the Courts below on the question of fact concerning status are greater than the revisiona1 powers usually exercised in small cause cases. The case relied on is the decision of Sree-nivasa Rao J., reported in In re. Krishna Murthy, 15 Mys LJ 334 (A). Before considering that decision it is useful to compare 3. 4, Sub-section 2 of the Mysore Agriculturists Belief Act with Section 10 of the Courts of Small Causes Act. According to Sections 10 and 11 of the Courts of Small Causes Act: "The High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes, may call for the case and pass such order With respect thereto as it thinks fit." Section 11. "Save as provided by this Act, a decree or order made under the forgoing provisions of this Act by a Court of Small Causes shall be final." According to Section 4. Sub-section 2 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in the Code of Civil Procedure, the finding of the Court of first instance on the issue of status shall be final and its correctness shall not be called in question in any appeal from the decree in the suit: Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of the said finding or the regularity of the proceedings, call for the records and pass such order with respect thereto as lit thinks fit." It will thus be seen that no appeal lies against 0 decision as regards status under the Agriculturists Relief Act or against a decree or order made by a Court of Small Causes. The High Court can in revision interfere with the order or decree of a Court of Small Causes when it is not satisfied with the correctness, legality or propriety of the decree or order. Interference by the High Court in revision under Section 4, Sub-section 2 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act can only be justified if in the opinion of the High Court, the order of the lower Court as regards status lacks in legality or propriety or when the proceedings are not regular. Considering that even the word 'correctness' found in Section 10 along with the words 'legality or propriety' is not found in the corresponding portion of Sub-section 2 of Section 4 of the Agriculturists Relief Act, the contention, that the powers of the High Court to interfere with the decisions of fact on a question of status by the lower Courts In cases under Agriculturists Relief Act are greater than its powers to interfere with decisions in Small Cause Cases has no substance. All that could be said is that there is not much difference between the revisional powers the High Court has in Small Cause Cases and its power in revision in cases under Section 4, Sub-section 2 of the Agriculturists Relief Act.
(3.) The Legislature evidently had its mind on the wording used in Sections 10 and 11 of the Court of Small Causes Act when it used the words 'correctness, legality, or propriety' in Section 4, Sub-section 2 of the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act. The latter section has stated that an order of the Court of first instance on the issue of status, shall be final and its correctness shall not be called in question in any appeal. When it provided for interference with the order of the lower Court by the High Court, it stated that the High Court may satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the said finding or the regularity of the proceedings but it took care not to say that the High Court could interfere if it is not satisfied merely with the correctness of the order in spite of the fact that the word correctness is found in the earlier part of the section, where it is stated that the correctness of the order shall not be called in question. It is evident that the legislature intended that the words correctness and propriety do not convey the same meaning. In fact what is incorrect may not necessarily be what is improper. To interfere with the order, the High Court must find that the order is not merely not correct but that it lacks in propriety or legality or that there is something lacking in the regularity of the proceedings. The legislature evidently wants the question of status to be settled once for all by the order of the first Court unless there is something lacking in propriety, or legality or in the regularity of the proceedings. If this has caused hardship It is for the legislature to remedy and it is not for the Courts to improve OH what the legislature enacts. If the legislature wanted the matter to be disposed of Quickly as if the entire matter was in appeal it could have easily provided for the filing of an appeal directly to the High Court on payment of a nominal Court-fee. It provided, for interference by the High Court "If in its opinion the legality, or propriety of the lower Court is open to question and has resulted in a failure of justice", as observed by Doraswami lyer C. J., in K. Dhas-anappa v. Venkatappa, 38 Mys HCR 275 (B), and the scope for interference by the High Court is not to any extent greater than its scope to interfere with the judgments and decree in small cause cases.;