P. L. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit, instituted by Jagdish Singh and his brother, Vijay Bahadur singh, the plaintiffs-respondents, to redeem certain ornaments, which had been pawned by their father, Deep Chand, with the appellant Gopal alias Gopla (defendant l), who will hereafter be referred to as the defendant, to secure a loan through Behari (defendant 2 ). The plaintiffs case was that their father had pawned three ornaments; but the defendant admitted the pawning of only two ornaments. The Courts below have found that, in fact, only two ornaments were pawned.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had failed to allow redemption of the ornaments in spite of notice and the offer to repay the loan. They further alleged that they and their father, deep Chand, have always been agriculturists and the defendant was a creditor by profession; consequently, they were entitled to relief under the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act, 1934.

( 3 ) THE case put forward on behalf of the defendant was that when the plaintiffs father was unable to repay the loan, the ornaments pawned with him were sold with his consent and the sale proceeds were appropriated towards the satisfaction of the loan. He denied the plaintiffs allegation that they were agriculturists and contended that they were not entitled to any relief under the Agriculturists Relief Act.

( 4 ) THE Courts below found that the defendant had failed to prove the alleged consent or the actual sale of the ornament pawned; that the plaintiffs and their father were agriculturists while the defendant was a "creditor" and that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief under the agriculturists Relief Act. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit on the ground that the ornaments were no longer available and the plaintiffs having failed to prove the rate of gold at the date of the institution of the suit it was not possible to find out whether anything would be due to them or the defendant.

( 5 ) THE lower appellate Court, however, came to the conclusion that the suit ought to have been decreed. The Court reduced the rate of interest and, as the defendant had not complied with the provisions of Section 32, Agriculturists Relief Act, also disallowed interest after 31-3-1935, in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. Accordingly, the Court passed a preliminary decree for redemption declaring the amount due from the plaintiffs and allowing them six months time for payment. The decree contains a direction that on payment by the plaintiffs of the amount found due minus the costs of the suit, the defendant shall deliver the ornaments pawned; and that, in the event of default, the plaintiffs shall get their value calculated at the rate of gold on the date of payment in the execution department.

( 6 ) THE defendant has preferred this appeal; and the main contention put forward on his behalf is that Section 34, Agriculturists Relief Act, in terms did not apply and the lower Court had no jurisdiction to disallow any portion of the interest, payable on the loan. It has been argued that the penalty provided in Section 34 of the Act can be imposed only in any suit or proceeding relating to a loan against an agriculturist" while this was a suit by an agriculturist debtor against a creditor.

( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the present suit was not one against an agriculturist; it had been instituted by an agriculturist. And, Section 34, Agriculturists Relief Act, clearly lays down that the penalty provided therein is to be imposed only in a suit or proceeding relating to a loan against an agriculturist.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has, however, urged that, in interpreting the relevant provision, we have to bear in mind that the Agriculturists Relief Act was enacted with the object of providing relief to agriculturists; and that in order to give relief the provisions ought to be interpreted liberally. He has pointed out that the provisions of Section 32 of the Act are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document