GANESHAIAH Vs. SUBBA BHATTA

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(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