https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285069 The commentary explains that under the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, the defendants qualified as agriculturists because they retained an interest in land under a subsisting kanom-kuzhikanom lease, had only gifted part of the property, and continued to receive rents from sub-lessees. It also states that Section 3 operated as an absolute bar against instituting a suit for recovery of debt against an agriculturist, so a court could decide the agriculturist issue and dismiss a suit filed in breach of that bar. Section 4 was treated as governing only suits already pending when the Act commenced, not suits instituted contrary to Section 3. en-us Fri, 07 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Dec 2019 14:09:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285069 The commentary explains that under the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, the defendants qualified as agriculturists because they retained an interest in land under a subsisting kanom-kuzhikanom lease, had only gifted part of the property, and continued to receive rents from sub-lessees. It also states that Section 3 operated as an absolute bar against instituting a suit for recovery of debt against an agriculturist, so a court could decide the agriculturist issue and dismiss a suit filed in breach of that bar. Section 4 was treated as governing only suits already pending when the Act commenced, not suits instituted contrary to Section 3. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285069