MOHAN LAL Vs. DWARKANATH KULDIP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition which is second in succession, arises in the circumstances which present by follow:

(2.) THE respondent firm has brought a suit for recovery of certain amount against another concern Messrs Mohan Lal Bodhraj, which is or was a trading firm having Mohan Lal and Bodhraj petitioners as its partners. The amount sued for is alleged to be the balance of the price of the goods, supplied by the respondent firm to the petitioners, firm during the course of some business transactions. One of the pleas taken in the written statement was, that the petitioners were agriculturists within the meaning of Section 2 I of the Agriculturists Relief Act Act No. I of 1983, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. An issue was accordingly raised and evidence recorded on it. This issue was eventually found against the petitioners and it was held that the principal source of the petitioners livlihood was trade and business as such they were not agriculturists within the meaning of Sec: - 1 of the Act. The petitioners challenged this order of the trial court in a revision petition. Chief Justice Ansari, who heard the revision petition, being of the opinion, that Section 2 I of the Act which ran into two parts, might still cover the case of the petitioners by virtue of its second part, accepted the revision petition and remitted the case back to the trial court to give its finding as to whether the petitioners were Agriculturists within the meaning of the second part of Section 2 1 of the Act The trial court has once again held that the petitioners are not agriculturists as their case is not covered by the second part of section 2 1 either. The petitioners have again felt aggrieved of this order hence the revision petition.

(3.) THE finding of fact arrived at by the trial court on appreciation of evidence, that the petitioners were earning their livelihood principally from trade and business has neither been challenged before me nor is the same open to challenge in a revision petition. The only question which, therefore, falls for determination is, what is the ambit and scope of the second part of Sec: 2 1 of the Act which contains the definition of an agriculturist? Shorn of unessentials Sub -section 1 of Sec: 2 reads thus: 1 "agriculturist" means a person who, by himself or by his servants or by his tenants, earns his livelihood wholly or principally by agriculture or by horticultural or pastoral pursuits, carried on within the limits of the State including Illaqa of Poonch and Jagir of Chenani or who, within such limits, ordinarily engages personally in agricultural labour or such pursuits; and includes a Lohar, a Tarkhan and a Kumhar who, within such limits, is wholly or principally dependent on a share of the agricultural produce given to him on account of his services to agriculturists, in his capacity of a Lohar, Tarkhan or Kumhar."