PANDURANG VITHOBA PATIL Vs. SHAMRAO BHAU PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises an important question regarding the interpretation of the second paragraph of Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act, 1879.

(2.) THE respondent obtained a money decree for Rs. 274 and odd against the appellant who was then not an agriculturist. THE respondent then filed a darkhast to recover the decretal amount, and as by that time the appellant had acquired the status of an agriculturist, the respondent requested the Court to direct the Collector to take possession of his land under the second para of Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act for the satisfaction of the decree out of its income. THE appellant contended that as he was not an agriculturist at the date of the decree, the Collector could not be asked to take possession of his land under that section. Both the Courts below held that para. 2 of Section 22 was applicable and ordered the darkhast to proceed.

(3.) IT is obvious that under that section the Collector could take possession only when the decree was passed against an agriculturist and the expression " at any subsequent time" obviously referred only to such a decree, so that if the judgment-debtor was not an agriculturist at the date of the decree, the second paragraph had no application even though he might have acquired that status at the time of its execution. Before the passing of the amending Act of 1882 it was held by this Court in Dipchand v. Gokaldas (1880) I.L.R. 4 Bom. 363 that the section was not intended by the Legislature to apply to decrees made prior to the coming into force of the Act. Hence the expression " at any subsequent time," was substituted by the words " in the course of any proceeding; under a decree against an agriculturist passed whether before or after this Act comes into force." This change was intended to make it clear that the section was to have a retrospective effect and to be applicable even if the decree against the agriculturist was passed before the coming into force of the Act. The expression " against an agriculturist" cannot be taken together with "any proceeding," since that expression is followed by the words " passed whether before or after this Act comes into-force," which are clearly applicable to the word "decree". The expression "against an agriculturist" comes between the word " decree " and the words " passed whether before or after this Act comes into force." Thus the clause read as a whole evidently means that the proceeding must be under a decree which is against an agriculturist and which is passed either before or after the Act comes into force.