SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1953 Supreme(Mad) 147

MACK, KRISHNASWAMI NAYUDU
Karipineni Rajayya – Appellant
Versus
Vallurupalli Ramachandra Rao – Respondent


Advocates:
B. Manavala Chowdry for Appellants.
D.P. Narayana Rao for Respondents.

Judgments: Mack, J.-

I am in complete agreement with my learned brother that the definition of an agriculturist in proviso to explanation (1) to section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, is quite different from that of an agriculturist as defined in section 3(2) of Act IV of 1938. The definition of ‘agriculturist’ in Act IV of 1938 is an extremely wide one having no relation whatsoever to ‘agriculture’ as such, which is defined in any dictionary as ‘cultivation of the soil’. It includes a large category of persons, who have a saleable interest in agricultural or horticultural land-no matter where they live or whether they are absentee landlords or not-subject to important provisions, one of which is that a person shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist, if within two years prior to 1st October, 1937, he has been assessed to property or house-tax in a municipality, having an aggregate rental value of more than Rs. 600.

The appeal as it appears to me in this case must succeed on a very short ground-Under section 7 of Act IV of 1938

“all debts payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of this Act, shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.”

The debt
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top