KARIPINENI RAJAYYA Vs. VALLURUPALLI RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am in complete agreement with my learned brother that the definition of an agriculturist in the proviso to Explanation (1) to Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, is quite different from that of an agriculturist as defined in Section 3(2) of, Act IV of 1938. The definition of "agriculturist" in Act IV of 1938 is an extremely wide one having no relation whatsoever to "agriculture" as such, which is defined in any dictionary as cultivation of the soil. "It includes a large category of persons, who have a saleable interest in agricultural or horticultural land -- no matter where they live or whether they are absentee landlords or not--subject to important provisions, one of which is that a person shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist, if within two years prior to 1st October 1937 he has been assessed to property or house tax in a Municipality, having an aggregate rental value of more than Rs. 600.

(2.) The appeal, as it appears to me, in this case must succeed on a very short ground. Under Section 7 of Act IV of 1938

(3.) An interesting question as to the application of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (Act IV of 1938) arises in this appeal. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,508-9-7, being the balance of principal and interest due on a mortgage bond dated 17-2-1933 executed by the first defendant and his father since deceased for Rs. 11,000 payable with compound interest at nine per cent per annum with yearly rests.