ORDER Malik, J.
1. This suit was filed by the plaintiff on the basis of two bonds dated 15th May 1936 executed by one Kali Prasad Ojha. It is admitted that Kali Prasad Ojha was an agriculturist. He died in the year 1939, and the suit has now been filed against his nephew Raj Ballam Ojha and his two daughters Mt. Champa and Mt. Mewati. Raj Ballam Ojha filed an application claiming benefit under the Debt Redemption Act. It has been held by the Court below that Raj Ballam Ojha was not an agriculturist. The Court below therefore refused to give him the benefit of the Debt Redemption Act. It is argued before me that the definition of "loan" in Section 2, Sub-section (9), Debt Redemption Act, includes money advanced before 1st June 1940 and recoverable from the property of an agriculturist. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that this is the property of Kali Prasad Ojha and the words " the property of an agriculturist" in the section mean the estate of a deceased agriculturist. The words "the property of an agriculturist" and the proviso to Section 2(9) were considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Mt. Ketki. Kunwar v. Ram Saroop ('42) 29 A.I.R. 1942 All. 390 and it was held that where the money was to be recovered only from the property of a defendant who was an agriculturist ii was not necessary that the money should have been advanced to an agriculturist and it was on that ground that benefit was given to the defendant to that suit. If the words "the property of an agriculturist" mean the property of a defendant who is an agriculturist on the date of the suit, then obviously they cannot mean the estate of a deceased agriculturist. To my mind therefore the decision in the Full Bench case quoted above impliedly goes against the contention of learned Counsel for the applicant. The amount however was not recoverable against the person or other property of the defendant and the decree should have been confined only to the property of Kali Prasad Ojha in the hands of the defendants. The lower Court overlooked this point. I therefore direct that the decree of the lower Court shall be modified to that extent. The parties shall bear their own costs of this revision.