JUHARIMAL SENAJI Vs. LILADHAR MADHAVJI SATWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant to recover three sums, one of Rs. 4,500 lent by the plaintiff to the defendant on June 30, 1946, another of Rs. 400 lent by the plaintiff on December 2, 1946, and a third sum of Rs. 50 lent by the plaintiff on January 30, 1947. THE plaintiff, in addition to these three sums, claims interest, with the result that the total amount now claimed by him is Rs. 5,952 and interest. In paragraph 7 of the plaint the plaintiff says that the defendant resides in Bombay. It is not stated that the defendant ordinarily resides in Bombay.

(2.) BY his written statement the defendant has raised various defences, the first of which is contained in paragraph 1 of his written statement. That paragraph states as follows: The defendant holds land for agricultural purposes in the Thana District and has been cultivating land personally; his annual income from sources other than agricultural and manual labour does not exceed 33 per cent, of his total annual income and his total debts are below Rs. 15,000. The defendant therefore submits that he is a debtor within the meaning of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1947, and this Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit.

(3.) ON these pleadings the following issues were raised: 1. Whether the defendant is a debtor within the meaning of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1939, or 1947? 2.Whether the defendant is an agriculturist within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879? 3.If either of the first two issues is answered in the affirmative, whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to try the suit ? The last issue is : 4.What is the amount due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendant ?