S.3 of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act V of 1954 imposes an absolute embargo on the institution of a suit for recovery of a debt from an agriculturist, and there is no provision in the Act for the dismissal of the suit filed in contravention of S.3.

1. The main question for decision in this appeal is whether a suit for recovery of a debt from an agriculturist, instituted when the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, V of 1954, was in force, could be dismissed or could only be stayed under S.4 of the Act. A Division Bench which heard the appeal has referred the same to a Full Bench as the correctness of an earlier decision of a Single Judge of this court holding that such a suit should be stayed was canvassed before it.

2. The plaintiff sued for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- and interest due from defendants 1 and 2 (father and son) under a registered promissory note for Rs. 20,000/- executed by the defendants in favour of the 3rd defendant and endorsed by the latter to the plaintiff. The defendants contended that they were "agriculturists" within the definition of the term in Act V of 1954 (Madras) and that the suit filed in contravention of S.3 of the Act should be dismissed. Issue No.1 which dealt with this question was tried as a preliminary issue and the court below came to the conclusion that the defendants were agriculturists. The suit was accordingly dismissed and the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

3. The two points raised on behalf of the appellants are (1) that the defendants were not agriculturists and (2) that even if they were agriculturists, the suit should have been stayed under S.4 of the Act and not dismissed. As the whole cafe has been referred for decision, both points have to be decided.

4. As regards the first question, namely, whether the defendants are agriculturists, evidence was adduced by both sides and after considering the same, the learned judge upheld the defence contention. Counsel for the appellant prayed for a remand to enable his client to adduce more evidence on the point. We do not think this prayer can be granted.

5. The term "agriculturist" has been defined in the Act as "a person who owns an interest in land, and who, by reason of such interest, is in possession of such land or is in receipt of the rents or profits thereof and shall include a lessee". It has been proved that the plaintiff's father granted a kanom-kuzhikanom right over 504 acres of land to the first defendant under Ext. B1 and that the same is still subsisting The plaintiff attempted to prove that the first defendant had parted with his rights over the entire property and that he was not therefore an agriculturist, Ext. Al is copy of the gift deed executed by the first defendant on 17-9-1948 and this shows that he gifted 470 out of 504 acres to his children and brother-in-law. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that even though the extent was mentioned in Ext. Al as 470 acres, the whole area covered by Ext. B1 was actually gifted. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff shows that this allegation is not correct. The kanom amount under Ext. B1 was Rs. 50/- and the proportionate amount made chargeable on the property gifted was only Rs. 45/-. The purapad under Ext. B1 was also apportioned under Ext. Al. It is therefore clear that only a part of the area was demised under the gift deed. This leaves a balance of 34 acres out of which 19 acres have been sub-leased under Exts. B6 and B7. The first defendant deposed that he still had 15 acres in his possession. The plaintiff has no case that anything more than 19 acres has been sub-leased by the first defendant. Pw.1 admitted that he had no personal knowledge as to whether the first defendant was directly in possession of any area. The subleases Exts. B6 and B7 show that the first defendant was in receipt of rents from the sub-lessees. Pw.1 stated that the first defendant leased a portion of Ext. B1 property to others. This shows that after executing the gift deed he had more lands in his possession and that it was only a portion of such land that was sub-leased by him. It was also admitted that the kanom-kuzhikanom lease was subsisting and that the plaintiff's father had obtained a decree against