MOHD ABDULLAH DAR Vs. MOHD AKBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN suit No.234 of 1963 instituted in the court of the Subordi ­nate Judge, Baramulla, by the respondent for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership which came into existence between the par ­ties by virtue of an instrument of partnership dated June 21, 1961, the defendants -petitioners interalia pleaded that they were agriculturists and the suit was triable under the Agriculturists Relief Act, 1983 - - - the trial, court thereupon raised a preliminary issue to the following effect: - "Whether the defendants depended for their livelihood on agriculture and as such the suit is triable under the Agri ­culturists Relief Act" O.P.D.

(2.) UNFORTUNATELY it took the trial court well -nigh seven years to bring the evidence of the parties regarding the above noted simple issue to conclusion and it was not before July 30, 1971, that the court by a perfunctory order was able to determine the issue against the defen ­dants holding that they being registered contractors of the Public Works Department could not be allowed to take refuge behind the Agriculturists Relief Act which was meant primarily for those persons whose sole source of livelihood was cultivation of land. Aggrieved by this order the defen ­dants came up in revision to this court which was placed for hearing before Mufti J. Relying upon a Division Bench decision of this court reported in 1969 K.L.J. 343, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended before the learned judge that the question whether the defendants were agriculturists or not was irrelevant in that the present suit was based upon partnership where there is no relation ­ship of creditor and debtor between the parties when alone the Agricul ­turists Relief Act, 1983 could be applicable. On the other hand it was urged before the learned Judge on behalf of the petitioners that Section 3 of the Act applied to various categories of suits including those in which the liability of an agriculturist may arise from a written or unwritten engagement for payment of money, that the liability arising from a part ­nership transaction was not excluded from the purview of the Act and that the decision reported in 1969 K.L.J. 343 (Supra) where it was held that, the Act was never intended to apply to big partnership transactions where there was no relationship of a lender or a debtor but where parties invested money or other assets to carry on some business required recon ­sideration. Feeling that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners could not be summarily rejected as unfounded and deserved serious consideration, the learned Judge formulated the following question for determination by the Full Bench, "What is the true scope of Section 3 of the Agriculturists Relief Act? Is its application confined to suits in which the defendant is an agriculturist and relationship is that of a creditor and debtor between the parties or also to the suits in which no such relation ­ship exists and yet some money is due from such agriculturist defendant and mere particularly whether it applies to suits for rendition of accounts based on partnership in which one of the parties is an agriculturist."

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties who have rei ­terated the contentions and submissions raised and made by them before the learned Single Judge.