SIDDAPPA GANGAPPA SHINTRE Vs. RAMCHANDRA VISHNU GINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point in this appeal is whether the defendant in a suit on a mortgage, who was not an agriculturist at the date of the preliminary decree, but who acquires agricultural status before the date of the final decree, is entitled to plead his status for the purpose of claiming instalments under Section 15b of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.

(2.) THE facts so far as they are necessary may be stated very briefly. THE mortgage was in July, 1926, for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000. Interest was twelve per cent. On February 4, 1932, the mortgagee filed a suit claiming Rs. 1,42,000. This was after allowing for the payment of Rs. 48,000. I may mention that since that date no payment whatever has been made. THE defendants, the mortgagors, claimed to be agriculturists but it was held after framing an issue and taking evidence that they were not. THE preliminary decree was passed on April 10, 1933. THE defendants appealed mainly on the point of their status as agriculturists. THE High Court dismissed the appeal on November 3, 1937. Cross-objections by the plaintiff in respect of the amount of interest awarded were allowed, so that the preliminary decree had to be modified in accordance with the High Court decree. On June 6, 1938, the plaintiff applied for redrafting the preliminary decree, and this was done on September 1, 1938. On October 21, 1938, the plaintiff applied for making the decree final. THE defendants again raised the contention that they were agriculturists. THE trial Court held that the plea was not admissible in view of the fact that they had been held to be non-agriculturists in the course of. the suit. THE defendants have appealed.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the respondent that it is not such a suit because the defendants were held not to be agriculturists at the tirne of the preliminary decree. But, in my view, in order that a; suit may be one against an agriculturist it is not necessary that he should be one when the suit is instituted. IT is sufficient if he is an agriculturist at any time during the pendency of the suit when the question of status falls to be determined. IT will not often happen that there will be sufficient time for a change of status during the pendency of the same suit, but there may be a long interval between the preliminary and final decrees, as there was in the present case, and if so, there seems to be no reason prima facie why a party should not be a non-agriculturist at the time of drawing up the preliminary decree, with the result that he cannot claim the special accounting procedure provided by the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and an agriculturist at the time of the final decree so as to be entitled at that stage to ask for instalments. The suit is still going on at that time, and if the defendant's status has really changed, it seems to me that it is at that time a suit coming within the scope of Section 3, Clause (y), of the Act, and Section 15b will apply to it.