Bombay High Court
Dagdu Anandram vs Mirasaheb Tanhaji on 8 January, 1912
Equivalent citations: (1912)14BOMLR385
JUDGMENT Chandavarkar, J.
1. The minors concerned in this case, it is found, were not agriculturists at the time of the suit. But the Courts below have given them the benefit of the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act under the second definition of Section 2, Clause (2), of the Act. According to that section, we must see what the definition of 'agriculturist' was at the time the liability was incurred. That definition was the same in 1893 that it is now, an 1, therefore, we have to see whether the minors concerned, either by themselves, or by their servants, or by their tenants, earned there livelihood" wholly or principally by agriculture. It is found as a fact by the learned District Judge that at the time the liability was incurred these were minors depending for their support on their father who was an agriculturist at that time, and, therefore, their income, if they can be said to have had an income, was chiefly derived from agriculture. That was because they depended upon their father for their livelihood. But dependence for livelihood upon another who is an agriculturist is not the same thing as earning livelihood for oneself by agriculture. To earn livelihood by agriculture is to obtain the means of livelihood by it: Dwarkojirav Baburav v. Balkrishnd Bhalchandra (1894) I.L.R. 19 Bom. 255. Upon the ground that there is no evidence whatever to show that the minors earned their I livelihood by agriculture at the time the liability was incurred, the decree must be reversed and the case sent back to the Sub. ordinate Judge to be dealt with on the merits according to law with reference to the observations in this judgment.
2. Costs hitherto incurred to be costs in the cause.