MUZAFFARNAGAR BANK LTD Vs. FATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision from an order of the Munsif of Muzaffarnagar dated 12 September 1936 allowing an application under Secs.5 and 30, Agriculturists Belief Act. The Court below has proceeded on the assumption that the applicant was an agriculturist as apparently the point does not appear to have been seriously contested before it. The Court has fixed 28 equal six-monthly instalments beginning from 15 March 1937 and has allowed future interest at the Court rate. The first point urged in revision is that the Court had no jurisdiction to spread the instalments over a period of 13 years from the date of the decree as under the first Proviso to Section 3 the Court should not have extended the period beyond four years. It is argued that the applicant is not a person as regards whom the limits prescribed for the payment of revenue and rent, etc. in Section 2, Sub- section (2), are to be omitted, It is then argued that he must come within the second category "other agriculturists" mentioned in that Proviso. Now the Proviso consists of two parts. Under the first part a period of 4 years only is fixed from the date of the decree "in the case of an agriculturist to whom Chapter 3 applies" and the second part prescribes a maximum period of 15 years from such date "in the case of other agriculturists". It is thus clear that an agriculturist would fall under the second category if he cannot be brought under the first. Now there are two conditions necessary for the applicability of the first category. The applicant must be (a) an agriculturist and (b) to whom Chap. 3 applies. If either the first or second or both of these conditions are not fulfilled, then he cannot come under that category and must come under the second category. Now Chap. 3 deals with mortgages and their redemption, and all the sections in that chapter deal with disputes arising between mortgagor and mortgagee. The whole of that chapter is altogether inapplicable to the case of a simple debt in which there is no relation of mortgagor and mortgagee but only one between simple creditor and debtor. By no stretch of the language therefore can it be said that Chap. 3 applies to a person who is a simple debtor and not a mortgagor. It would follow that such a person would not come under the first category but must come under the second, provided of course he is an agriculturist.

(2.) It is argued on behalf of the applicant that the meaning of the expression "an agriculturist to whom Chap. 3 applies" is that the applicant must possess a status which would make him an agriculturist coming within the purview of Chap. 3 if he had been a mortgagor and had been applying under Chap. 3. This contention is opposed to the language used by the Legislature which is to the effect "to whom Chap. 3 applies" and not "to whom Chap. 3 would have applied". Strong reliance is placed by the learned advocate on the ruling of a Division Bench of the Oudh Chief Court in Girwar Singh V/s. Ramman Lal in which, no doubt, the Bench took the view which supports the applicant's contention. The learned Judges started with the consideration of the question "whether or not the opposite party are agriculturists to whom Chap. 3 applies". They then considered the provisions of Secs.2 and 3 and then stated what they considered to be the policy underlying the rule and concluded: We are therefore definitely of the opinion that the opposite party being agriculturists of the class referred to in Section 2(2), Clause (a), and therefore an agriculturist to whom Chap. 3 applies , the period of instalments which could be fixed in the decree standing against him could not be extended beyond four years.

(3.) Apparently it was thought that if the applicant possessed the status of an agriculturist mentioned in Section 2, Sub-section (2), Clause (a), he is a person to whom Chap. 3 applies. With great respect, we are unable to agree with this view. Chap. 3 cannot apply to this applicant at all because he is not a mortgagor. He may be an agriculturist, but he is certainly not an agriculturist to whom Chap. 3 applies. The argument of the learned Counsel comes to this: that the agriculturist within the meaning of the Proviso to Section 3 is the agriculturist who comes within the groups (a) to (h). The Legislature has however not chosen to say so. It may be pointed out that the Proviso to Section 2, Sub-section (2), merely widens the scope. Ordinarily the persons who are agriculturists and can take advantage of this Act are those enumerated in the groups (a) to (h), but for the purposes of certain special sections and chapters the limits imposed regarding the amount of rent and revenue, etc., have been omitted, and persons whose revenue and rent exceed the maximum can also be regarded as agriculturists. It is noteworthy that there are numerous other sections and other chapters in the Act which, like Chap. 3, are not mentioned in this Proviso. If the argument for the applicant were sound, then the result would be that for the purpose of the other chapters and sections the same difficulty would arise and the period allowed for instalments would be 4 years only. On the other hand, the Legislature has in express terms provided in Section 3 that all other agriculturists would have a period of 15 years for the purposes of instalments, while those to whom Ch. 3 applies should have the shorter period. There is therefore no justification for substituting in Section 3, for the words "to whom Ch. 3 applies" other words like "who come under groups (a) to (h) in Section 2".