( 1 ) THIS case raises a question of importance under the Hyderabad agricultural Debtors Relief Act (XVI of 1956) hereinafter referred to as the Act. The facts leading to the present controversy are as follows :-The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition obtained a decree on foot of a compromise for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,000 in O. S. No. 104 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Secunderabad. The judgment-debtor filed an application sometime in the year 1953 under section 12 of the Money-lenders Act for the payment of decree in certain instalments and obtained an order for the payment of the said sum in eight equal instalments of Rs. 500 each. He seems to have paid a sum of Rs. 1,433-5-4 and thereafter defaulted. After the coming into force of the Act in 1956, he filed an application before the Subordinate Judge, Medak at Sangareddy for relief under the Act. To enable a debtor to obtain relief under the Act it is necessary that he must answer the description of the word debtor which is defined in section 2 (6) of the Act. In so far as it is relevant clause (6) is in these terms :"

2. (6) Debtor means- (a) an individual- (i) who is indebted ; (ii) who holds land used for agricultural purposes or has held such land at any time not more than 30 years before the 30th January, 1943, which has been transferred whether under an instrument or not and which transfer is in the nature of a mortgage although not purporting to be so ; (iii) who has been cultivating land personally for the cultivating seasons in the two. years immediately preceding the date of the coming into operation of this Act or of the establishment of the Board concerned under the repealed Act ; and (iv) whose annual income for sources other than agricultural and manual labour does not exceed 33 1/3 per cent, of his total annual income or does not exceed Rs. 500 whichever is greater. "

( 2 ) THE Subordinate Judge has found that the petitioner before him is a person indebted and that he holds lands used for agricultural purposes as required by clause (6) (a) (ii) extracted above. He however held that there is no proof that he has been cultivating land personally for the cultivating seasons in the two years immediately preceding the date of the coming into operation of the Act. As this requirement was not fulfilled, the application was dismissed on the ground that he was not a debtor as defined in the Act. This order was taken up in appeal to the district and Sessions Judge of Medak at Sangareddy. According to the learned district Judge it is sufficient if a person holds lands for agricultural purposes within the meaning of sub-section 6 (a) (ii) and that it is not necessary for him to satisfy the requirements of sub-section 6 (a) (iii ). According to the learned Judge it was not necessary that a person should have personally cultivated lands before he could satisfy the definition. As I understand the order it is sufficient that a person satisfies either the requirement of sub-section 6 (a) (ii) or 6 (a) (iii) for being a debtor under the Act. This can be done only by introducing the word or between sub-sections 6 (a) (ii) and 6 (a) (iii ). If the reasoning of the learned Judge is to be extended logically, the word or has to be added at the end of each one of the sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section 6 (a ). This will lead to a patent absurdity because a person will be a debtor if he satisfies the first requirement viz. , section 2 (6) (a) (i) i. e. , being an individual who is indebted. That a debtor is a person who is indebted need not be set out in a definition. Obviously, the object and intendment of the Act was to give relief to persons engaged in agriculture from longstanding and chronic indebtedness into which they had fallen. This object will be frustrated by giving the interpretation which the learned Judge has given. If the interpretation of the learned Judge were to hold good, a person holding agricultural land who is otherwise employed in Government service and owning large properties in a city, would be entitled to relief under the Act although he has never been cultivating any lands personally. Certainly the object of the Act is not to benefit such persons. In my opinion, all the sub-clauses of section 2 (6) (a) should be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. It is as if the word and has been used at the end of each of the sub-clauses (i) , (ii) and (iii) of section 2 (6) (a ). It is a well established rule of interpretation of statutes that words should be substituted where the context requires. In this connection a passage from Bindra on the Interpretation of Statutes and General Clauses Act (Central and States) at page 317, 2nd Edition, may be noticed :"when an examination of the context discloses that certain words have been inadvertently omitted from a statute, such words as are necessary to complete the sense will be supplied, but words should be supplied in a statute only when the omission is palpable and the word omitted is clearly indicated by the context. "

( 3 ) IT is also well known that it is not necessary to add the conjunction and at the end of every sub-clause and its addition before the last of the sub-clauses leads to the same result. In my opinion, a person comes within the definition of debtor under the Act only if he fulfils every one of the conditions laid down in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of section 2 (6) (a) of the Act and it is not sufficient if he merely satisfies one only of those sub-clauses. The Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act is framed on the same lines as the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act No. XXVIII of 1947, The word debtor is denned in section 2 (5) of the said Act and is in the same terms subject to certain minor variations. In a case reported in Natha Devji v. Sameja Virji, A. I. R. 1955 Kutch. 22 it was observed as follows :"the definition of the debtor given in section 2 (5), Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, requires a person to fulfil four conditions before he could be held to be a debtor . The fourth condition is about his income. In other words, the Court must be satisfied that all these four clauses including the fourth clause about income were satisfied before a person could be held to be a debtor . "

( 4 ) I am therefore of opinion that the view taken by the learned District Judge is not correct. It therefore follows that this Civil Revision Petition should be allowed and the order of the Subordinate Judge is restored with costs here and in the Court below. Revision allowed.