HARIHARA IYER Vs. BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a creditor's appeal from an order allowing the benefits of Act 31 of 1958 for payment of the debt due from the debtor.

(2.) THE only point for decision is whether the respondent is an agriculturist as defined in the Act. THE definition of an 'agriculturist' in S. 2 (a) of the Act requires that he should have an interest in agricultural or horticultural land. THE principles to be followed by the Court in such cases have been laid down in the rulings reported in 1958 KLJ. 786 ,195 9 KLT. 396 and 1959 KLT. 790. Judged in the light of these decisions the order under appeal cannot be supported. THE land involved is only 31 cents of land in one of the busiest parts of Kottayam Town. THEre are three buildings for which the rent fixed in the document is Rs. 125/- per month. It appears that the actual rent is Rs. 160/-per month. Compared to this, the number of trees is negligible. We have no hesitation in holding that the land is neither agricultural nor horticultural. THE respondent is not therefore entitled to any relief under the Act.