DAVE, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a writ application by a creditor under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are as follows : - THE non-petitioner No. 1 Maharaj Bhopal Singh was a jagirdar of a thikana called Khandu in the erstwhile state of Banswara. THE petitioner filed a suit against him for the recovery of a debt of Rs. 6,000/- in the court of the Senior Civil judge, Banswara. That court was also a Debt Relief Court under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act (No. 28 of 1957), which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. "the non-petitioner No. 1, therefore, filed an application in that court under sec. 6 of the said Act. THE petitioner contested the said application on the ground that non-petitioner No. 1 was a wealthy person and an ex-jagirdar having large sources of income and, therefore, he did not come within the ambit of term 'agriculturist' as given in sec. 2 (b) of the Act. This objection did not find favour with the Debt Relief Court and so it was dismissed on 14th January, 1960. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed a revision petition in the court of the District Judge, Partabgarh, but he was not successful and hence he has approached this Court with the request that it should exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and set aside the impugned orders. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the statement of non-petitioner No. l himself recorded by the Debt Relief Court, it would appear that he was owner of one Ravla at Khandu worth one lac of rupees, that he had another house at Banswara, costing about one lac and that he had filed a claim for compensation in respect of his jagir which was resumed by the State and the amount of the said claim exceeded two lacs of rupees out of which he had received Rs. 30,000/- as interim compensation. It is pointed out that on the showing of non-petitioner himself he was a man of substantial means and the agricultural income pointed out by him was only insignificant fraction thereof, It is contended that non-petitioner No. 1 may be having some earning from agriculture, but it cannot be said on that account that he was earning his livelihood wholly or mainly from agriculture. It is also pointed out that the preamble of the Act would show that it was enacted in order to provide relief to the agriculturists in the State of Rajasthan from indebtedness. It was in the nature of an Insolvency Act which was meant to give relief to those agriculturists who were heavily indebted and to whom it was necessary to give relief from a number of creditors. In the present case, the non-petitioner No. 1 had only one single debt to pay to the petitioner and, therefore, he could not justly invoke the provisions of this Act in his favour. In reply, it is urged by learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 1 that when his client was examined in the Debt Relief Court, he had stated that he was receiving annual income of about Rs. 3,000/- from agriculture and that he had no other means of livelihood. He had no doubt admitted that he had landed property worth 2 lacs of rupees in his possession and that he had also filed claim for compensation to the tune of over two lacs of rupees but that did not form part of his livelihood and therefore the courts below had committed no error in holding him to be an agriculturist. We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and also gone into the statement of non-petitioner No. 1 which was recorded by the Debt Relief Court. We have also carefully gone through the impugned orders of the learned Civil Judge and the District Judge. It appears from the perusal of both the orders that neither the learned Civil Judge, nor the learned District Judge applied his mind to the definition of the term "agriculturist" as given in section 2 (b) of the Act. The term "agriculturist" has been defined in the said Act as follows : "2. (b) "agriculturist" means a person who earns his livelihood wholly or mainly from - (i) agriculture, or (ii) rent from agricultural land in case he belongs to any of the categories of persons mentioned in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-sec. (1) of sec, 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955 ). and includes a person who ordinarily engages in agricultural labour or who works as an agricultural artisan. " It is common ground between the parties that non-petitioner No. 1 is not covered by clause (b) (ii) because he does not come within any of the categories of persons mentioned in clause (a) to (h) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. We have therefore to see whether the two courts below have applied their minds to the question whether the non-petitioner's case was covered by sec. 2 (b) (i) of the Act. It is clear from the definition of the term "agriculturist" reproduced above that a person in order to come within the ambit of the said term must be a person who earns his livelihood wholly or mainly from agriculture. It may be pointed out that the words "wholly" or "mainly" are very significant and, thereto i. e, whenever an application is made by a person claiming himself to be an agriculturist it becomes duty of the court to see whether the applicant, who wants to take advantage of the Act, is earning his livelihood wholly or mainly from agriculture. It is not enough for him to say that agriculture is also one of the means of his livelihood. The perusal of the orders of both the courts below shows that they only applied their minds to the question whether non-petitioner No. 1 was earning his livelihood from agriculture. They did not consider the further question whether non-petitioner No. 1 was earning his livelihood wholly or mainly from agriculture. Non-petitioner No. 1 has only stated that he was possessed of agricultural plots covered by eight Pattas produced by him, that he had a pasture land measuring about 1000 bighas and his annual income from agriculture was about Rs. 3,000/ -. It was not. however, brought out in his statement as to what was his total means of livelihood and what was the ratio of his income from agriculture in. comparison to his total means of livelihood. It is noteworthy that even in the application, which was filed by non-petitioner No. 1 under sec. 6 of the Act, most of the columns in which he ought to have given the necessary details were left blank. It is thus clear that both the courts below have committed errors patent on the face of the record inasmuch as they failed to give proper consideration to the definition of the word "agriculturist" and did not consider the question whether non-petitioner -No. 1 was earning his livelihood wholly or mainly from agriculture. Under the circumstances their orders which are sought to be impugned by the present writ application, cannot be maintained. We allow the writ application, set aside both the impugned orders and direct that the case be sent back to the Debt Relief Court (Civil Judge), Banswara with instructions to bring out necessary details from the examination of the parties and their evidence which they may like to put in that court and then to decide the question afresh. In the circumstances of the case, both the parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court. .;