MATHEW Vs. CHANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists' relief Act, 1956 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act') reads: " (1 ). No suit for recovery of a debt shall be instituted, and no application for execution of a decree in respect of a debt shall be made against any agriculturist in any Civil or revenue court before the expiry of six months from the commencement of this Act.

(2.) THE District Judge has held that the prohibition in this Section deprived the Civil Court of its jurisdiction to execute a money decree against an agriculturist, and assumed that "the decree states that he (the 1st defendant) is an agriculturist". Counsel for the respondent, when called upon to tell how the decree indicated the 1st defendant to be an agriculturist, could only say that in the cause title to the decree he has been described as a farmer. THE term 'agriculturist' is defined in the Act thus: "'agriculturist' means a person who has an interest other than interest as a simple mortgagee in any agricultural or horticultural land, but does not include (i) any person liable to pay land revenue exceeding one hundred rupees per annum in any year after 1952-53; (ii) any person assessed to profession tax on income derived from a profession other than agricultural under any law governing municipal or local bodies in India on a half yearly income of more than nine hundred rupees in any half-year after 1952-53; (iii) any person assessed in any half-year after 1952-53 to property or house tax on an annual rental value of not less than six hundred rupees in respect of buildings (other than a building in which he lives) or lands other than agricultural lands under any law governing municipal or local bodies in India; (iv) any person assessed to salestax on a total turnover of not less than twenty thousand rupees in any year after 1952-53 under the travancore-Cochin General Salestax Act, 1125 (XI of 1125), or under the law of any other State relating to salestax; (v) any person assessed to incometax under the Indian incometax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), in any year after 1950-51; (vi) any person assessed to agricultural incometax in any year after 1950-51 under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Incometax Act, 1950 (XXII of 1950), or under the law of any other State relating to agricultural income tax; (vii) a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932) or a company as defined in the Companies Act, 1956 (I of 1956), or a corporation formed in pursuance of an Act of Parliament of the united Kingdom or of any special Indian Law: Explanation I. Where a Joint Hindu family or tarwad, tavazhi, or illom is an agriculturist, every coparcener or member of the tarwad, tavazhi or illom, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be an agriculturist, provided that he does not fall under any of he categories specified in sub-clauses (i) to (vi ). Explanation II. THE provisions of this Act shall not apply to any person who is not an agriculturist on the commencement of this act;" THE Act came into force on September 11, 195 6. It is clear that every person who had been a farmer on the date of the decree would not be an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act, and therefore the observation of the District Judge that the decree indicated the 1st defendant to be an 'agriculturist' is incorrect. But, it is not disputed before me that the 1st defendant was in fact an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act both at the time of the disputed execution proceedings and at the commencement of the Act.

(3.) THAT the Legislature did not mean the prohibition in s. 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1956, to annul the general jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is clear from sub-section (2) of S. 3 of the Act which reads: "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a creditor files a suit for recovery of a debt during the period specified in sub-section (1) or. . . the Court shall in decreeing the suit direct the plaintiff to bear his own costs and pay the costs of the defendant who is an agriculturist. " The prohibition in sub-section (1) is alike in regard to suits and applications for execution, and sub-section (2) makes it clear that the prohibition is neither absolute nor jurisdictional in the case of suits. The effect of the prohibition on applications for execution cannot be different. It is then clear that S. 3 of the Act only confers a privilege upon a defined class of agriculturists. It behoves on the person claiming that special privilege to plead the same and prove his title thereto in due time, or else he will be debarred from claiming it at a belated stage by the proceedings against him having become final and conclusive. The view of the District Judge that the Court sale being in contravention of S. 3 of the Act was without jurisdiction cannot therefore be upheld.