The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, specifically regarding the qualification of an agriculturist and the exemption of debt from the Act.

Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. This appeal has been brought by the defendant in a mortgage suit from a decree disallowing his claim to have the mortgage debt scaled down in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. The respondents put forward two grounds for excluding the appellant from the benefits of the Act, namely, that the appellant was disqualified under proviso C to Section 3 (ii) of the Act from claiming to be an agriculturist, and secondly, that the debt itself was exempted from the operation of the Act by Section 4 (d).

2. As regards the first ground the relevant facts are these. The appellant was assessed within the period mentioned in the proviso to tax on property of an annual rental value of Rs. 500-8-0 of which she was the sole owner. She appears to have been assessed also to house-tax in respect of a house in which she was entitled to a seventh share. Ex. G-l the certificate issued by the Commissioner, Madura Municipality, under Section 27 of the Act is defective in that it does not state that the appellant and her co-sharers were actually. assessed to such tax during the relevant period but the parties clearly proceeded in the Court below that such assessment was in fact made, and this second appeal must be disposed of on that footing. The certificate however discloses that the house in question stood in the names of the appellant and her co-sharers in the municipal register and that its annual value during the period was Rs. 647. It will thus be seen that if the properties in respect of which the appellant was assessed to tax were taken to include the house in its entirety, the aggregate rental value of such properties would be much more than Rs. 600 and the appellant would be disqualified; whereas if such properties were taken to include only the appellants seventh share in the house the aggregate rental value would amount to only Rs. 599-15-0, which falls just below the limit specified in the proviso which would not therefore operate to exclude the appellant from the definition of an agriculturist. The Court below took the view, relying on Swaminatha Odayar v. Srinivasa Aiyar AIR1939Mad942 . that proviso C does not deal with interest in property but with assessment to property" and held that the appellant must be taken to have been assessed to the extent of the full annual rental value of the house as she and her co-sharers were jointly and severally liable for the property tax. It accordingly refused to scale down the debt.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant attacked the correctness of this view pointing out that the decision relied on by the learned District Judge is not applicable to the facts of this case. It must be admitted that the case of Swaminatha Odayar v. Srinivasa Aiyar AIR1939Mad942 . has not much bearing upon the question which arises for determination here. All that it decided with reference to proviso C was that only persons who have been assessed to property tax are excluded from the benefits of the Act and that a person could not be said to be so assessed unless the assessment was made in his name. No question arises here as to whether the appellant can be said to have been assessed to property tax or not, for, admittedly the assessment was made in her name. The only question is whether in computing the aggregate annual rental value of the properties in respect of which she has been assessed, the whole annual rental value of the house in which she holds only a seventh share should be taken into account or only the proportionate share of such value. On this question the decision referred to above throws no light. The point however appears to have been recently decided favourably to the appellant by a Division Bench of this Court in C.M.P. Nos. 5740 to 5747 and 5905 to 5907 of 1941. The petitioners who claimed the benefit of the Act in that case were owners of a half share of a house which had been assessed to tax during the relevant period. The annual ren