SHANKARLAL BANSILAL MUNDADE Vs. RAGHUNATHDAS ANANDRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are that the judgment-debtor, appellant, was sued in the Subordinate Court at Ahmednagar on a promissory note for Rs. 3,600. A consent decree was passed against him for Rs. 3,100 payable by-yearly instalments of Rs. 500, the whole remaining amount becoming, recoverable in case two instalments failed. One of the conditions of the decree was that the defendant waived his right to plead agricultural status both in the suit and in any execution proceedings which might follow on it. He paid Rs. 2,500 under the decree, but failed to make good the last two instalments due, and recovery of these is sought by his arrest and imprisonment in the civil jail.

(2.) The original Court held that the judgment-debtor was not precluded from raising such a plea by his waiver of status in the terms of the decree, and finding he was an agriculturist, dismissed the application for execution. The learned District Judge in first appeal took the opposite view and directed that execution should proceed. This is the order appealed against. The relevant provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act are, that an agriculturist must be sued in the Court in the original jurisdiction of which he resides ; and that " no agriculturist shall be arrested or imprisoned, in execution of a decree for money, whether before or after this Act comes into force"-s. 21.

(3.) The judgment-debtor being a Marwari, the money-lending class, was not prima facie an agriculturist. Whether he pleaded that status or not in the suit is not clear. Had he done so and established the contention, the Ahmednagar Court would have had no jurisdiction.