This Revision Petition is filed by the Judgment Debtor in E.P.No.248 of 2004 in O.S.No.656 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Dhone.

2. The Decree Holder filed a suit for recovery of money and it was decreed. Later, she filed E.P. for attachment of bulls and cart. The Judgment Debtor resisted the said E.P. by saying that he is an agricultural coolie, therefore, his implements cannot be attached under Section 60 of C.P.C. He filed E.A.No.34 of 2005 for raising attachment of the bulls and cart. The Execution Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, came to a conclusion that the bulls and cart are not liable for attachment. Hence, the Application was allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the Decree Holder preferred C.M.A.No.4 of 2005 before the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, and the said Appeal was allowed by setting aside the order of the Execution Court by observing that there is no evidence to the effect that the petitioner was using the bulls and cart for agricultural purpose. It is further observed that when his deposition shows that he gave his land towards discharge of his debts, the question of cultivating such lands does arise at all. He should have given evidence before the Court in support of his claim and for not doing so, an adverse inference has to be drawn. An agricultural coolie does not require any bulls and carts. Even supposing that he happneds to be an agricultural coolie, the bull and cart are not to be exempted under Section 60 of C.P.C. for the same reasons. Accordingly, the Appellate Court allowed the Appeal by setting aside the order of the Execution Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the Judgment Debtor preferred the present Appeal.

3. In the light of the above circumstances, the point for consideration is: Whether the bulls and cart, being the agricultural implements, are exempted under Section 60 of C.P.C. from attachment. Section 60 (c) of C.P.C. reads as follows: 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree.-(1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely ........................................... Provided that the following properties shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:-- (a) ................................... (b) ................................... (c) houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to [an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant] and occupied by him. (d) ..........................................

4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the bulls and the cart possessed by the Judgment Debtor were being used for agricultural operations, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no evidence adduced by the Judgment Debtor to show that the bulls and cart are being used for agricultural purpose, therefore, the Appellate Court was right in ordering attachment of the bulls and cart by drawing a presumption that the bulls and cart are not being used for agricultural purpose.

5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied on a Judgment of this Court in SEELI TIRUPATI AND OTHERS v. BHUPATHIRAJU JANIKAMMA AND OTHERS 1, wherein this Court held that: "The test of tilling the soil and being unable to maintain himself otherwise, laid down in decided cases, is one which is pre-eminently satisfied by an agricultural labourer. Therefore, an agricultural labourer is an 'agriculturist' within the meaning of Section 60 (c) Civil Procedure Code. The mere fact that in decided cases, that the judgment-debtor owned land or had interest in the land was also referred to and relied upon can by no means support the contention that a person who does not own agricultural land, but is only an agricultural labourer, is not entitled to the benefit of s