SANJEEVAPPA Vs. AJJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in C.R.P. 909 of 1965 is whether the respondent (defendant) is an agriculturist's Relief Act.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court was the plaintiff in O. S. 593/63 in the Court of the Munsiff, Chitradurga. The plaintiff brought the suit against defendant (respondent) on two pronotes for Rs. 390 dated 15-7-1957. The contention of the plaintiff was that the defendant was an agriculturist both at the time when the suit pronotes were executed and also at the time the suit was instituted. It may be mentioned that the suit was instituted on 20th September 1963. The plaintiff relied on the extended period of limitation given by S. 24 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned Munsiff held that the defendant was no an agriculturist as per the Mysore Agriculturists Relief Act and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the benefit of the extended period of limitation under Section 24 of the said Act and dismissed the suit. This revision petition is directed against the said order of the learned Munsiff.

(3.) Sri Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the learned Munsiff has failed to consider the question whether the respondent was an agriculturist on the date of the suit transaction namely, date of the suit pronotes. He argues that as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in Muttiah v. Kuber Singh, 1966-2 Mys LJ 289 (FB) the relevant question is whether the debtor was an agriculturist on the date of the suit transaction. He therefore contends, as the learned Munsiff has not given any finding on this question, this is a fit case where the matter should be remanded to the learned Munsiff to give a proper finding.