TUKARAM SAVALARAM Vs. NARAYAN BALKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against a decision of the District Judge, Kolaba, by which ha held that opponent No. 1 was a debtor and his debts could be adjusted under the Bombay Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act. It appears that the debtor made an application under 8. 4 for adjustment of his debts on 17-6-1917, to the Mahad Court and he contended that a certain transaction was a mortgage though ostensibly a sale. The learned trial Judge held that the appellant was residing not in Mahad but in the Bhor State and also that he was cultivating lands personally not in Mahad but in the Bhor State and on that ground he dismissed the application of the debtor holding that he was not a debtor within the meaning of the Act. The learned District Judge came to a contrary conclusion. He hold that the debtor was an ordinary and permanent resident of Mahad. With regard to the second ground the learned Judge took the view that it was sufficient for the purposes of the Act if the debtor was cultivating land during the material period anywhere.

(2.) Now, when the application was made by the debtor on 17-6-1947, Bhor was not a part of the State of Bombay, and in order to maintain the application under the Bombay Agricultural Debtor Relief Act the debtor had to be a resident in a local area for which a Board was established and ho had to satisfy the definition of a debtor given under Section 2 (5). For the purposes of this revision application we are concerned with the definition contained in Section 5 (a) (iii) which provides:

(3.) Mr. Virkar has tried to controvert this argument by pointing out the definition of an "agriculturist" is Section 2, Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. There "agriculturist" was defined as a person who by himself or by his servants or by his tenants earned his livelihood wholly or principally by agriculture carried on within the limits of a district or part of a district to which this Act may for the time being extend, and Mr. Virkar's argument is that when the Legislature wanted to qualify land it did so in clear terms as in this statute. NOW, the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and the Bombay Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act are not in pari materia. The Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act was a Central Act which was made applicable to different districts from time to time by relevant notifications. As it was a Central Act the Legislature had to restrict the operation of the Act to the particular area where it was made applicable. If land had not been qualified in Section 2, it might have been argued that a person who cultivated land anywhere in India, whether the Act was made applicable or not, would come within the definition and, therefore, it was necessary to qualify the use of the expression "land" in that section. But it was not necessary to do so in the Bombay-Agricultural Debtor Relief Act because the Bam-bay Agricultural Debtor's Belief Act is a Provincial Act and its territorial application is confined to the Province of Bombay, and as the intention of the Legislature was that relief should be given to any person cultivating land anywhere In the Province of Bombay, the expression "land" in Section 5 (a) (iii) was not qualified.