HAJI SHEIKH WAHID-UDDIN Vs. BMAKHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit brought by him under Section 33(2), U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, No. 27 of 1934, praying that the amount payable by the plaintiff to the defendants under the document dated 4 February 1982, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants for Rs. 1,00,000 may be declared after deducting the amount paid and fixing the rate of interest.

(2.) The plaintiff, appellant alleged that he was an "agriculturist" within the meaning of the Act; that he was an old resident of the United Provinces, and was entitled to the relief claimed; that he had executed a document for Rs. 1,00,000 in favour of the defendants on 4 February 1932; that the major portion of the property hypothecated under the said document lay in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, but at the instance of the defendants some property situate in the Province of Delhi was also mentioned in the document simply with the view that the document might be registered in Delhi; that the rate of interest agreed upon and mentioned in the document, was As. 12-6 per cent, per mensem compoundable six-monthly; that in lieu of the interest aforesaid a lease was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants on 4 February 1932; that as a matter of fact the two documents were parts of the same transaction and the object was to secure the payment of the interest; that the plaintiff had made payments towards principal and interest, the amount of which was far in excess of the interest payable under the provisions of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act; that the surplus should be set off against the principal; and that the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration prayed for.

(3.) The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff was not an "agriculturist" within the meaning of that word in the Act; that the document executed by the plaintiff in their favour on 4 February 1932, was a deed of usufructuary mortgage; that the property situate in the Province of Delhi was of considerable value and had not been entered in the document fictitiously simply with the object of securing registration in that province; that it was agreed upon between the parties that the profits, which the property was capable of yielding, would amount to such a sum as would give the mortgagees a return which was equal to As. 12.6 per cent, per mensem compoundable six-monthly on the amount advanced; that the defendants, usufructuary mortgagees, then gave a lease of the property to the plaintiff with the stipulation that the latter would pay a certain sum of money periodically to the lessors; that the relationship of lessor and lessee was thereby created between the parties; that the payments made by the plaintiff have all been duly credited; that the Agriculturists Relief Act did not apply to the transaction in question; and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief claimed.