Full Judgment
Bennet, J.
1. This is a civil revision by Baramdin, plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed in the Small Cause Court. The plaintiff sued on a promissory note and the only issue foamed was:
Did the defendant execute the promissory note and receipt without getting consideration for it? Is he bound to pay the money of the promissory note? To what sum if any is the plaintiff entitled?
2. The Court below has not found against, the plaintiff on any of these issues other than a finding that the consideration of the promissory note was illegal in view of Section 6-A, Agra Tenancy Act. Act 3 of 1926, which lays down that sir rights are not transferable. The Court however has failed to understand the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act. The case was not one of the transfer of sir rights but of the relinquishment of ex-proprietary rights and as such there is a provision in Section 15(2) that within six months immediately preceding or succeeding a transfer which will give rise to ex-proprietary rights an application may be made for the surrender of such rights, and if the Assistant Collector is satisfied that the applicant does not wholly or mainly depend on agriculture for his livelihood or that the land transferred is self-acquired or has been acquired within the 20 years last preceding, he shall sanction such application; and in Sub-section (3) that if he is not so satisfied he shall enquire if there are other reasonable grounds for sanctioning the transaction. Now the contract in question was that the defendant would pay the plaintiff Rs. 200 if Mt. Keoli, the wife of his brother, did not execute a relinquishment of her ex-proprietary rights. It is stated in evidence of Jumna, the defendant, that Mt. Keoli did execute a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. On such a sale-deed in accordance with the provisions of Section 14, Agra Tenancy Act, Act 3 of 1926, ex-proprietary rights arose in Mt. Keoli. Section 15(2) provides that where ex-proprietary rights arise on such a transfer an application may be made for surrender of those ex-proprietary rights. It was therefore perfectly legal for Mt. Keoli to have made such an application within six months of the transfer. The contract into which the defendant entered was that he would pay Rs. 200 if Mt. Keoli did not carry out her undertaking to relinquish her ex-proprietary rights. There would have been nothing illegal in Mt. Keoli in doing all that she could do in accordance with Section 15 to give effect to this contract, that is she could have made an application to the sub-divisional officer asking that her ex-proprietary rights should be relinquished. She made no such application and accordingly the defendant became liable to pay the plaintiff Rs. 200. Considerable argument has been made on hypothetical cases; by learned Counsel for the opposite party, but the facts appear to me to be clear and to entitle the plaintiff to a decree. Accordingly I set aside the decree of the Court below and I grant a decree in favour of the plaintiff with costs in both Courts.