NAUBAT RAI Vs. JUGAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's application in revision. The plaintiffs from time to time lent money to the defendant and the defendant made certain payments. In the year 1945, the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 136-10-0 as balance due on the basis of the plaintiffs ac-count-books. The defendant pleaded that he was an agriculturist and that as there was no written document evidencing the loans, for the recovery of which the suit had been filed, within the meaning of Section 39, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, the plaintiffs suit was bound to fail. There were other pleas also taken and the trial Court framed three issues. It held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the debt and were, therefore, not entitled to recover anything. The plaintiffs filed an appeal, and the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad held in defendant's favour that the provisions of Section 39, Agriculturists Belief Act had not been complied with as there was no written document . But the learned Judge came to the conclusion that from the other evidence it was established that money had been borrowed by the defendant and a sum of Rs. 100 was due to the plaintiffs and decreed the suit fox that amount, that being only the principal money, the learned Judge having disallowed all interest. The defendant filed this application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. The case came up below one of us and as there was some apparent difference of opinion between this Court and the Avadh Chief Court on the interpretation of Section 39, Agriculturists Relief Act the case was referred to a bench for decision.

(2.) Section 39, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act (XXVII

(27.) of 1934) provides that: Every loan given after the date on which this Art comes into force shall be evidenced by a written document, of which a copy shall be given to the debtor. It is clear that the Legislature intended that a loan advanced, after the Act had come into force, to an agriculturist debtor should not be a oral debt but that a record should be made of it in writing and a copy of it given to the debtor and whenever the question arose whether the agriculturist-debtor was liable for the money claimed or not that writing might be used as evidence of the transaction. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs that the signatures of the debtor were not obtained against the entries in the plaintiffs account books. The plaintiffs at their own convenience made entries in their account-books which must be deemed to be a note or a memorandum made by them for their own purpose and not a record of the transaction made with the object of being used as the sole evidence of the transaction between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the entries in the account- books of the plaintiffs cannot be interpreted as included in the words written document in Section 39, Agriculturists Relief Act.