JUDGMENT

Thomas, CJ - Bhaiya Lat Bakhsh Singh, taluqdar of Majhgawan filed a suit under Section 33, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, in the Court of the Civil Judge of Gonda. The learned Civil Judge "held that the plaintiff was an agriculturist and accordingly decreed the suit and determined the amount on the three mortgages Exs. 1, 2 and 3. The appeal came up for decision before a Bench of this Court, and as it differed with regard to the construction to be placed on the first proviso to Section 2(2), U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, read with Expln. 7 to the said Section, it referred the appeal to a Full Bench. The word "agriculturist" is defined in Section 2(2), Clauses (a) to (h). Clauses (a) to (g) show that the word "agriculturist" means a person who pays land revenue, local rates, rent or holds. land free of rent up to certain specified limits of land, revenue, local rates, rent and area. The plaintiff admittedly paid over Rs. 1000 as land revenue, over Rs. 120 as local rates and over Rs. 500 as rent; he also held some land revenue free. The learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff was an agriculturist because in his opinion Expln. 7 to Section 2(2), U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, was subject to the first proviso of the Section. On appeal to this Court, Yorke J., concurred with the above view, but Hamilton J. was of opinion that the plaintiff was taken out of the class of agriculturists by Expln. 7 to Section 2(2), which is as follows:

When a person holding land in districts subject to the Benares Permanent Settlement Regulation 1 of. 1795, or holding land free of revenue, pays both rent and local rate, he shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist if the total of the rent and local rate annually payable by him exceeds Rs. 500.

2. The question for consideration is whether the proviso should be construed as subject to Expln. 7 or whether Expln. 7 should be construed as creating an absolute bar. The contention on behalf of the defendant-appellant is that the plaintiff is not an agriculturist in view of Expln. 7 to Section 2(2), U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The first proviso lays down that

in Section 2(10)(a), 3, 4, 5,8 and Chaps. 4 and 5 an 'agriculturist' means also a person who would belong to a class of persons mentioned in parts (a) to (g) of this sub-section, if the limits of land revenue, local rates, rent and area mentioned in these parts were omitted.

3. It means that the limits of revenue, local rates, rent and area which are to be omitted in determining the status of an agriculturist under Chaps. 5 are the limits mentioned in Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 2(2). No other limits are intended as prescribed in Explns. 6 or 7 to the said Section. In my opinion therefore it is clear that Expln. 7 is independent of the first proviso and it is not ah addition to Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 2(2). The word "explanation" has wrongly been used. It is, in my opinion, more like a "proviso" than an " explanation." There is no absurdity or ambiguity in Explanation 7. Where the language of a statute is plain in itself, it is not open to the interpreter to add to it or to deduct from it or even to consider whether the rule is likely to create hardships in particular cases if it be read in its ordinary sense. The words themselves alone must be considered to see the intention of the law given. I am therefore of opinion that Expln. 7 is independent of proviso 1 and the plaintiff is not an agriculturist. I would therefore allow the appeal with costs.

Ziaul Hasan, J.

4. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Bhaiya Lat Bux Singh, now deceased, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, in the Court of the Civil Judge of Gonda under Section 33, Agriculturists' Relief Act. The appeal came up for decision before a Bench of this Court but as the learned Judges composing the Bench differed on the question whether or not the plaintiff was an agriculturist to which the provisions of Section 33 of the Act could be applied, .th