JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmad, J.
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage dated 23rd August 1929. The mortgage was executed by Bansidhar and his son Cheddi Lal who are members of a joint Hindu family. Bansidhar and Cheddi Lal contested the suit inter alia on the allegation that both of them were agriculturists and were entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Sections 3 and 30, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act (Act 27 of 1934). They prayed that the rate of interest be reduced and the decretal amount be made payable by instalments. This prayer of the defendants was accepted by the trial Court and that Court reduced the interest and also granted certain instalments. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court. The plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court and it is argued on his behalf that in view of the provisions of Expln. 2 to Sub-section (2), Section 2 of the Act the Courts below were wrong in granting instalments and in reducing the rate of interest. In support of this contention reliance is further placed on one of the provisions to Section 2 which runs as follows:
Provided further that if a non-agriculturist joins with an agriculturist in any transaction of loan, save for the purpose of adding his name as security, the agriculturist shall not be considered as such for the purpose of that transaction.
2. Explanation 2 provides that in the case of members of a joint Hindu family...each member...shall be considered to be an agriculturist for the purposes of Chs. 2 (except Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8), 3 and 6, whose share or interest in revenue, local rate or rent...as the case may be, does not respectively exceed the aforesaid limits.
3. In the present case it has been found by both the Courts below that the joint family of the defendants is possessed of ancestral zamindari property, the revenue of which does not exceed Rs. 1000. But the name of Bansidhar alone, who is the karta of the family, is recorded in the revenue papers and Cheddi Lal's name is not recorded as a proprietor in those papers. In view of the provisions of Explanation 2, it is contended that Cheddi Lal could not be considered to be an agriculturist for the purposes of Sections 3 and 30 of the Act, and it is therefore urged that he must be deemed to be a non-agriculturist and as Bansidhar joined with Cheddi Lal in the execution of the mortgage the Proviso quoted above applied to this case. In our judgment, there is no force in this contention. The Proviso applies only to those cases where an agriculturist joins a non-agriculturist in any transaction of loan. Cheddi Lal could not, in view of Explanation 2, be regarded as a non-agriculturist for all purposes. He could not therefore be held to be a non-agriculturist so as to invite the application of the proviso referred to above. That being so, Bansidhar by joining Cheddi Lal in the execution of the mortgage did not forfeit the right to the relief to which he was entitled by the provisions of the Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Allahabad Bank Ltd. Meerut v. Prakash Nath (1938) 25 A.I.R. All. 12, in support of the contention referred to above. In that case it was held that if a person is recorded us holding certain property or if the revenue papers show that a certain person actually pays land revenue, etc. then he is the person who is prima facie an "agriculturist" within the moaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act. It was further held in that case that Explanation 2, Sub-section 2, Section 2 of the Act makes it clear that each member of a joint Hindu family cannot claim the benefits conferred by Section 5 of the Act, or by Section 30 which is one of the Sections in Chapter 4, because Section 5 and Ch. 4, are expressly excluded in this Explanation. The learned Judges after making these observations ruled that for the purposes of applications under Section 5 or applications under Ch. 4, the person recorded as owner or the person paying revenue, etc. is the only person who can apply. Normally such a per-HOII in a joint Hindu family would be the karta.
4. It is clear from the observations just quoted that a karta of a joint Hindu family is entitled to apply for the benefit conferred by Section 3 and Rule 30 of the Act. In the case before us, Bansidhar had applied for relief under those Sections in his written statement. The Courts below were therefore right in granting instalments and in reducing the rate of interest. It was argued that as Cheddi Lal could not be deemed to be an agriculturist for the purposes of Sections 3 and 30, the decree for the full amount claimed should have been passed against him. We are unable to agree with this contention. On an application being made by Bansidhar the Court was competent to extend the benefit of Sections 3 and 30 to both the defendants who are members of a joint Hindu family. In our judgment, there is no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.