MALAY RAMULOO Vs. MOHAMMAD QAMARUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises a question of importance under the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act (XVI of 1956) hereinafter referred to as the Act. The facts leading to the present controversy are as follows :- The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition obtained a decree on foot of a compromise for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,000 in O.S. No. 104 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Secunderabad. The judgment-debtor filed an application sometime in the year 1953 under section 12 of the Money-lenders Act for the payment of decree in certain instalments and obtained an order for the payment of the said sum in eight equal instalments of Rs. 500 each. He seems to have paid a sum of Rs. 1,433-5-4 and thereafter defaulted. After the coming into force of the Act in 1956, he filed an application before the Subordinate Judge, Medak at Sangareddy for relief under the Act. To enable a debtor to obtain relief under the Act it is necessary that he must answer the description of the word ' debtor ' which is defined in section 2 (6) of the Act. In so far as it is relevant clause (6) is in these terms :

(2.) The Subordinate Judge has found that the petitioner before him is a person indebted and that he holds lands used for agricultural purposes as required by clause (6) (a) (ii) extracted above. He however held that there is no proof that he has been cultivating land personally for the cultivating seasons in the two years immediately preceding the date of the coming into operation of the Act. As this requirement was not fulfilled, the application was dismissed on the ground that he was not a debtor as defined in the Act. This order was taken up in appeal to the District and Sessions Judge of Medak at Sangareddy. According to the learned District Judge it is sufficient if a person holds lands for agricultural purposes within the meaning of sub-section 6 (a) (ii) and that it is not necessary for him to satisfy the requirements of sub-section 6 (a) (iii). According to the learned Judge it was not necessary that a person should have personally cultivated lands before he could satisfy the definition. As I understand the order it is sufficient that a person satisfies either the requirement of sub-section 6 (a) (ii) or 6 (a) (iii) for being a debtor under the Act. This can be done only by introducing the word ' or' between sub-sections 6 (a) (ii) and 6 (a) (iii). If the reasoning of the learned Judge is to be extended logically, the word 'or' has to be added at the end of each one of the sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section 6 (a). This will lead to a patent absurdity because a person will be a debtor if he satisfies the first requirement viz., section 2 (6) (a) (i) i.e., being an individual who is indebted. That a debtor is a person who is indebted need not be set out in a definition. Obviously, the object and intendment of the Act was to give relief to persons enagaged in agriculture from longstanding and chronic indebtedness into which they had fallen. This object will be frustrated by giving the intepretation which the learned Judge has given. If the interpetation of the learned Judge were to hold good, a person holding agricultural land who is otherwise employed in Government service and owning large properties in a city, would be entitled to relief under the Act although he has never been cultivating any lands personally. Certainly the object of the Act is not to benefit such persons. In my opinion, all the sub-clauses of section 2 (6) (a) should be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. It is as if the word ' and ' has been used at the end of each of the sub-clauses (i) ,(ii) and (iii) of section 2 (6) (a). It is a well established rule of interpretation of statutes that words should be substituted where the context requires. In this connection a passage from Bindra on the Interpretation of Statutes and General Clauses Act (Central and States) at page 317, 2nd Edition, may be noticed :

(3.) It is also well known that it is not necessary to add the conjunction ' and' at the end of every sub-clause and its addition before the last of the sub-clauses leads to the same result. In my opinion, a person comes within the definition of ' debtor' under the Act only if he fulfils every one of the conditions laid down in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of section 2 (6) (a) of the Act and it is not sufficient if he merely satisfies one only of those sub-clauses. The Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act is framed on the same lines as the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act No. XXVIII of 1947, The word 'debtor' is denned in section 2 (5) of the said Act and is in the same terms subject to certain minor variations. In a case reported in Natha Devji v. Sameja Virji, A.I.R.1955 Kutch. 22 it was observed as follows :