RATANSI JETHABHAI BHAT Vs. BALKISAN GANGABAKAS NANDWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the order of the Assistant Judge at Jalgaon. The plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendants certain lands in terms of a writing passed by the defendants on November 30, 1932. The lands are agricultural fields, and the defendants are agriculturists. The agreement was to sell the lands for Rs. 3,000, payable by six annual instalments of Rs. 500 each. The defendants paid the first instalment of Rs. 500 but failed to pay the two subsequent instalments. The result was that, in terms of the agreement, the plaintiff required the defendants to hand over the lands back to him. On their failing to do so, he filed the suit to recover back his possession. It is to be noticed that there was no conveyance in favour of the defendants from the plaintiff. In the trial Court the plaintiff succeeded. The defendants' contention was that although the writing contained a stipulation to pay the plaintiff Rs. 3,000 in six instalments the real agreement between the parties was that the purchase price was Rs. 1,750 payable as follows : Rs. 500 on the signing of the agreement and five subsequent annual instalments of Rs. 230 each. The trial Court rejected the defendants' contention that they were entitled to lead oral evidence under Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, It also rejected their further contention that a notice was required to be given to them in any event. On appeal the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act governed the case and ordered a remand to take oral evidence as tendered by the defendants. The plaintiff has appealed to the High Court.

(2.) IN my opinion the view of the lower appellate Court, about the admissibility of oral evidence, is incorrect. The nature of the transaction, as found in the written document, is a purchase by the agriculturists of certain fields. They agreed to pay the price in instalments mentioned in the agreement. On their failure to pay the instalments the vendor filed the suit to recover back the possession. The short question therefore is whether such a transaction falls within the scope of Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.

(3.) SECTION 3 (w), which is the only sub-SECTION relevant here, runs (omitting the unnecessary words) as under : Suits for the recovery of money alleged to be due to the plaintiff * * * * * on a written or unwritten engagement for the payment of money not hereinbefore. provided for. On behalf of the defendants it was contended that it is the duty of the Court first to determine the nature of the transaction and next to find whether the liability of the defendants even in part was triable under the third chapter i.e. covered by SECTION 3(W). It was contended that the Court was not bound to look to the actual frame of the suit but must look at the transaction included in the suit to find out whether the case was covered by SECTION s 10A, 12, and 3(w) or not. In my opinion these SECTION s give special rights to agriculturists which are not enjoyed by ordinary citizens. Being exempting SECTION s the liability covered by the ordinary laws of the land should be shown to be expressly excluded by the plain terms of these SECTION s; in default the laws of the land must govern the transaction. The Court has to determine the nature of the transaction and find out whether the liability, even in part, has to be determined under the third chapter. SECTION 12 begins with the words " In any suit of the description mentioned in SECTION 3, Clause (w). . ." The later words " if the amount of the creditor's claim is disputed " also indicate that the suit must be one to recover money. That is the nature of the suit indicated in SECTION 3(w), in terms, and is further emphasized by the words of SECTION 12.Unless therefore the suit itself is one to recover money the case will not fall under SECTION 3(w). I am unable to read the three SECTION s together as meaning that oral evidence is permitted to be led in every case in which an agriculturist is a party and contends he is liable to pay a smaller amount than what is mentioned in a written document, when the plaintiff's suit is not to recover money. There is nothing to justify such a wide construction of those SECTION s. I find that reasoning on the same lines was accepted in Tarachand v. Bala (1938) 40 Bom. L.R. 974.