JUDGMENT Bennet, J.
1. This is a civil revision by the plaintiff against a decree of the lower Appellate Court holding that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain his suit and directing that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff by the trial Court for presentation to the proper Court. The objection taken by the defendant to jurisdiction was that he was an agriculturist residing within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Kaimganj in Farrukhabad District, and the suit had been tried by the Honorary Bench of Munsifs in Farrukhabad whose jurisdiction did not extend to Kaimganj. The plea was taken under Section 7, U.P. Agriculturists' Belief Act of 1934. That Section refers only to suits for recovering an unsecured loan against an agriculturist. The present suit is brought on the basis of bahikhata accounts for goods purchased by the defendant through the commission agency of the plaintiff. It has been held by a learned single Judge of this Court in Kincha Mal v. Khub Ram (1937) 24 A.I.R. All. 669 that the purchase of goods and the fact that the price of the goods is owing does not constitute a loan by the seller to the purchaser. We consider that the ruling should be accepted and that that principle is correct. In the definition of "loan" in the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, Section 2(10)(a) there must be an advance to the agriculturist. In the case of goods being sold we do not consider that this can be held to be an advance to the agriculturist. The goods themselves are not advanced as a loan. They are actually sold and it is intended that the title in the goods should pass permanently to the agriculturist at the time of sale. For these reasons we allow this civil revision and we return the appeal to the Court below for disposal according to law on the merits. Costs hitherto incurred will abide the result.