LAXMAN HARI GHARPURE Vs. VISHNU VISHWANATH PARANJPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question in this appeal is whether appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 can be said to be agriculturists within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act, 1879. THEse appellants at the time the darkhast was filed were all minors. THEy lived with their uncle Laxman, the first appellant, on whose behalf the appeal has not been pressed, and according to the evidence they formed with him a joint family owning fairly considerable agricultural lands; and it has been found by the Court below that the only income of the joint family was derived from these lands although Laxman had separate income in the shape of pension. THE learned Subordinate Judge held against appellants Nos. 2 to 4 on the plea of agriculturist status on the ground that minors cannot be held to be agriculturists because they themselves do not earn their livelihood, and he relied upon a decision of this Court in Gadadhar v. Gangaram (1931) 33 Bom. L.R. 825.

(2.) THE material part of Section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act is as follows : Agriculturist' shall be taken to mean a person who by himself or by his servants or by his tenants earns 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, or who ordinarily engages personally in agricultural labour within those limits.

(3.) I agree. The decision in Gadadhar v. Gangaram (1931) 33 Bom. L.R. 825 on which the lower Court has relied, does not apply to the facts of the present case. That decision was based upon the finding that the minor son depended for his support on his father, and it followed the previous decision in Dagdu v. Mirasaheb (1912) I.L.R. 36 Bom. 496 : s.c. 14 Bom. L.R. 385 where also there was a similar finding. But in the present case we have the finding on evidence, which has not been disputed before us, that the minors belong to a joint Hindu family whose agricultural income was greater than its non-agricultural income. That being so, it is difficult to see why the minors would not come under the definition of the term " agriculturist" in Section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. In the case of a joint Hindu family a minor acquires interest by birth, and therefore along with the adult members of the coparcenary he is also a co-owner of the property. If that property consists of agricultural lands, the income of such property is also the income of all the coparceners including the minor. He is, therefore, a person who by himself or by his servants or by his tenants earns his livelihood by agriculture. In my opinion, the word " earns " is not used by the Legislature in the narrow sense of earning by personal exertions only, but it includes receiving agricultural income from one's lands. Take the case of a sole minor whose principal means of livelihood consists of income from agricultural lands which are either managed by servants or given to tenants. In my opinion, it cannot be suggested that such a person would not fall under the definition of agriculturist in the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. On the same reasoning I fail to see why a minor who, along with the adults, is a member of a joint Hindu family should not be regarded as an agriculturist if he obtains his livelihood from his share in the income of agricultural lands. I feel quite certain that the Legislature could not have intended that while adult coparceners in such a case would get the benefit of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, the minor coparceners should not, so far as their share in the property is concerned. With great respect I do not agree with the observations made in Gadadhar v. Gangaram to the effect that a minor coparcener would not come under the definition of an agriculturist. The actual decision m that case was that an infant two or three years old cannot be said to be earning the income of agricultural lands and that he ought to depend for his support on his father. It is not clear whether in that case there was joint family property in which the minor had a share by birth. But where there is such property, the case would be governed by the decision of Kania J. in Mahadev v. Ramchandra (1937) 39 Bom. L.R. 1172 which I think takes the correct view. The intention of the Legislature seems to have been that all persons who depend upon the income of agricultural lands belonging to them should be protected by the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the minors in the present case are agriculturists under the Act, and their appeal should be allowed.