V R MORRIS Vs. VEERA DCRUZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal which is directed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Cochin, denying relief to the appellant - the judgment debtor, under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, or shortly the Act, the two questions which arise are, whether the appellant is an agriculturist, and whether the judgment debt is a debt, within the meaning of the Act. We are of the opinion, that this appeal must fail on the decision of the first question.

(2.) On the arguments addressed to us, the first question must depend on, whether a plot of land, 16 cents in extent, on which seven cocoanut trees and one bread-fruit tree are standing, and in which a residential building occupied by the appellant, is situated, is agricultural land within the meaning of S.2 (a) of the Act. The Subordinate Judge has found, that the land is in an important residential locality in Fort Cochin, capable of fetching a monthly rent of Rs. 125/-, while the yield from the trees, would not be more than 8 1/3 rupees per mensem; this finding was not disputed. It cannot therefore be doubted, that the land has a residential value more than anything else, and is used accordingly.

(3.) The definition in S.2 (a) of the Act is related to agricultural land, as distinguished from non agricultural land. The term agricultural land denotes, as we understand it, land devoted to agricultural purposes. The purpose to which the land is put must therefore decide the issue; if so we have no doubt, that the land in question is used as the residential seat of the appellant. Counsel for the appellant contended, that the existence of the trees on the property without more, must be deemed to be sufficient to establish its character as agricultural land; pushed to the logical limit, if, for example, there is only one tree on the property, counsel found it difficult to sustain the argument. He then submitted, that if the area of the above plot of land on which the trees stand, is carved from the rest of the area on which the building is situated, the area so carved, may be deemed to be agricultural land. This is to ignore, what perhaps is the underlying fact in the case, that the whole plot of 16 cents constitutes, and is used as one unit; it seems to us the character of the land has to be determined, by the use to which it is put and not by the accident that a few trees are standing on it, though in a given case, such number may have some relevance in ascertaining the nature of the use of the land. In the present case, we come to the conclusion, that the plot of land in question, was not devoted to agricultural purposes, and is therefore not agricultural land. Another plot of land, 4 cents in extent also owned by the appellant, is the seat of his dispensary, and was not contended before us, to be agricultural land.