RAO BAHADUR MOOLCHAND NEMICHAND Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by R. B. Moolchand nemichand, a creditor of respondent No. 2. Shri Sohan Chand, and is directed against the decision of the Debt Relief Court (Civil Judge) Chittorgarh dated 28-101963, whereby the Debt Relief Court held in a proceeding under Section 6 of the rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957, hereinafter to be called the "act", that Shri Sohan Chand was an agriculturist within the meaning of section 2 (a) of the Act. The creditor first went up in revision to the Court of the district Judge, Partabgarh, but the latter dismissed the revision by his order dated 9-4-64, holding that the Debt Relief Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that Shri Sohan Chand was an agriculturist. Consequently the petitioner is questioning the correctness of the decision of the learned District Judge as well.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 Shri Sohan Chand approached the Debt Relief Court with the allegation that he was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act, and that he was indebted to the tune of about Rs, 20,000/ -. Respondent No. 2, specified R. B. Moolchand Nemichand and the State of Rajasthan as his creditors in his application under Section 6 of the Act. The creditors joined issue and contested the claim made by Shri Sohan Chand that he was an agriculturist. Accordingly the Debt relief Court framed an issue whether Shri Sohan Chand was an agriculturist and whether the main source of his livelihood was agriculture. Evidence was led by the parties. Shri Sohan Chand offered himself as a witness and produced Servashri rajmal, Fateh Singh and Mohammed Nazir as his witnesses. Petitioner R. B. Moolchand Nemichand examined one Shiv Prasad a retired Revenue Inspector of badi Sadri in rebuttal. The main witness was Shri Sohan Chand, himself who stated that he had 50 bighas of land, out of which 40 bighas were mortgaged by him, and of the remaining 10 bighas he was in actual possession and was cultivating the same. He also stated that he was a Law Graduate and was enrolled as a lawyer from 1935 to 1945, but after 1945 he gave up the practice and took up agriculture which was his. main source of livelihood. He added that he had no other business. As regards the income that he earned from agriculture he stated that it was about Rs. 300/-a year and he put it at Rs. 25/- or Rs. 30/-per bigha per annum. In cross-examination, however, he admitted that he was keeping a maid-servant to whom, he was paying Rs. 30/-per month with food as her remuneration for services rendered to him. He also admitted that he had two sons of school going age and they were reading in VII or VIII class.

(3.) IN challenging the decision of the Debt Relief Court and that of the learned district Judge, Partabgarh it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that it was the duty of respondent No. 2, to establish clearly that agriculture was his sole or main source of livelihood before he could get any relief from the Debt Relief Court and as he had completely failed to do so the Debt Relief Court had no jurisdiction to go ahead with the proceedings.