Iqbal Ahmad, C.J.@mdashThis is a second appeal by Plaintiffs whose suit for accounts u/s 33 of the Agriculturists'' Relief Act was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The suit was for accounts with respect to a mortgage debt that was evidenced by a deed dated the 17th of March, 1925. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 200 and was executed by Aftab Ahmad the husband of Plaintiff No. 1 and father of Plaintiff No. 2.
2. The Defendant contested the suit inter alia on the ground that as the Plaintiffs were not agriculturists on the date of the advance of the loan they were not entitled to maintain the suit. This contention was overruled by the trial Court but given effect to by the lower appellate Court.
3. It was common ground that Aftab Ahmad was an agriculturist on the date of the loan and that on his death, the Plaintiffs succeeded by right of inheritance to the properties left by him. The courts below, therefore, further held that the Plaintiffs were agriculturists on the date of the suit. The trial Court held that inasmuch as the predecessor-in-title of the Plaintiffs was an agriculturist when the loan was advanced to him and as the Plaintiffs were agriculturists on the date of the suit, they were entitled to sue for accounts u/s 33 of the Agriculturists'' Relief Act. The lower appellate Court, on the other hand, relying on the decisions of this Court in Sunder Lal v. Kaushi Ram 1938 A.W.R. (H.C.) 680 and Chedi Lal v. Bharat Tamoli 1939 A.W.R. (H.C.) 260, held that as the Plaintiffs themselves were not agriculturists on the date of the loan the suit brought by them u/s 33 was not maintainable.
4. In my judgment the decision of the lower appellate Court cannot be supported. The decisions of this Court relied upon by the lower appellate Court have no application to the facts of the present case. In these cases the Plaintiff in the suit u/s 33 was the very person who had taken the loan and it was held that, as it was not proved that the Plaintiff was an agriculturist on the date on which he hid taken the loan, he was not entitled to sue u/s 33 of the Act. In the present case the Plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the person who had originally taken the loan, viz., of Aftab Ahmad. The fact that Aftab Ahmad was an agriculturist on the date of the loan was, as already stated, not disputed at the trial. It is also clear now that the Plaintiffs were agriculturists on the date of the suit. It follows that the debt was advanced to an agriculturist and the Plaintiffs in the suit, who were the legal representatives of the original debtor, were agriculturists on the date of the suit. That being so, the suit was, in my judgment, clearly maintainable. It is true that Section 33 speaks of a suit by an agriculturist debtor for an account of money rent or advanced to him, but this provision, to my mind, does not disentitle the heir of an agriculturist debtor to bring a suit under that section provided the heir is also an agriculturist on the date of the suit. By inheriting the property of an agriculturist debtor the person inheriting the property becomes a debtor within the meaning of the Act and is liable to pay the debt to the extent of the assets received by him. That being so, there seems to be no apparent reason why the heir of an agriculturist debtor should be debarred from availing himself of the benefit conferred by Section 33 of the Act. To hold otherwise would be to put a very restricted interpretation on Section 33 and to confine its operation only to cases where the original debtor was himself alive and was the Plaintiff in the suit. I can find no justification for putting such a restricted interpretation on Section 33, The Act was passed with the object of making provision for the relief of agriculturists from indebtedness and I cannot persuade myself to believe that the legislature, while conferring benefit on an agriculturist debtor, intended to deprive his heir of the benefit conferred by the Act. I, therefore, hold that a suit by the heir of an agriculturist debtor for accounts u/s 33 is maintainable provided the debtor himself was an agriculturist on the date of the loan and the Plaintiffs in the suit, who are the original debtor''s heirs, are agriculturists on the date of the suit.
5. For the reasons given above I allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and remand the case to that court with the direction to restore the appeal to its original number and to dispose it of according to law The Appellants are entitled to the costs of this appeal. The costs of the Court below will be in the discretion of the lower appellate Court.
