Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, prohibits the sale of agricultural lands in execution of decrees, including court sales.

CHANDRA REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment of Sanjeeva Row Nayudu J. , reversing that of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, overruling the objections raised by the respondent to the attachment of a cattle shed, a house and some agricultural lands.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions urged in this appeal, it is necessary to state a few material facts. The appellant obtained a decree against the respondent in O. S. No. 30/1 of 1953-54 and, in execution of that decree, attached a cattle shed in the village of Gummanur, a house situated in Manthena and agricultural lands (3 acres wet and 10 acres dry) belonging to the judgment-debtor and situated in the Gummanur village. The judgment-debtor filed objections to the attachment on the allegations that the shed and the house in question Tell within the exemption contemplated by Section 60 C. P. C. and that the agricultural lands could not be sold in execution of a decree of Civil Court by virtue of Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, XXI of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 3 ) THE trial Court overfilled these objections and directed the execution to proceed.

( 4 ) ON appeal by the aggrieved judgment-debtor, Sanjeeva Row Nayudu J. set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge in the view that the house was occupied) by the judgment-debtor, that his cattle and agricultural implements were housed in it and, consequently, the building and the site appurtenant thereof were exempt from attachment by reason of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 60 (1) C. P. C. and that the lands also were exempt from attachment, as they fell within the prohibition enacted in Section 47 of the Act. In the result, he accepted the appeal and directed the dismissal of the execution petition. It is this order of the learned Judge that is the subject-matter of this appeal.

( 5 ) IN this appeal, the conclusions of the learned Judge are assailed. It may be mentioned here that in execution of the decree, in addition to the lands and the thatched house in the village, a house at Manthena was also attached. The learned counsel for the. appellant did not press the appeal as regards the house in the village, as obviously it was being used for housing the agricultural implements etc. He contends that the house at Manthena falls outside the pale of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 60 C. P. C. , since this property, situated four or five miles away from the lands, could not be said to he occupied by the judgment-debtor for agricultural purposes. It must be mentioned here that the learned Judge had proceeded on the assumption that what was attached was only a house in the village in which the agriculturist and his family were, in fact, living and his cattle and agricultural implements were housed in it. As we have pointed out above, besides this house, a house at Manthena belonging to the Judgment-debtor was also attached. In regard to this property, all that is proved is that the judgment-debtor, who owns agricultural lands, resides in it and stores grain in it. That, in our opinion, does not justify the application of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 60 C. P. C. The intendment of Clauses (b) and (c) is that protection should be given to persons who are real tillers of the soil and depend on agriculture for their living. It is for that reason that all things necessary for the calling of agriculture such as those enumerated in Clauses (b) and (c) are exempt from attachment. It is, therefore, necessary that there should be a nexus between the agricultural implements etc. on the one hand and the house on the other in order to get the benefit of these clauses. It is only the articles used or may be used for agricultural purposes and the house occupied for carrying on cultivation that are within the scope of the proviso. Thus, exemption can be claimed only in regard to houses which are occupied for the purpos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document