The main legal point established in the judgment is the classification of the order under S.31 of the Kerala Financial Corporation Act, 1951, as not constituting a decree as defined in S.2(2) of the Code, and the consequent inapplicability of S.60 of the Code, except for procedural aspects.

1. The Kerala Financial Corporation (for short'the Corporation') filed an application before the Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara for an order of sale of certain items of properties in realisation of a sum of about 2 and half lakhs of rupees due from the appellant and another person. The properties include 43 cents of land and the building thereon which have been mortgaged by the appellant with the Corporation as security for the loan granted to an industrial concern. These mortgaged properties are attached by the lower court as per an order passed on I. A. No. 468 of 1979. The main application was resisted by the appellant on many grounds of which the relevant one is that the mortgaged properties are not liable to be attached and sold in realisation of the loan amount. The basis for the said contention is that, according to the appellant, she is an agriculturist as envisaged in S.60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short'the Code'). All the contentions of the appellant were repelled by the learned District Judge and he ordered the properties to be sold for recovery of the amount due with interest. The claim of the appellant that she is an agriculturist did not find favour with the learned District Judge. This appeal is against the aforesaid order.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the court below has erred in holding that the appellant is not an agriculturist. But the main point which requires to be considered in this appeal is whether, even assuming that she is an agriculturist, the mortgaged properties are not liable to be sold in proceedings initiated under the Kerala Financial Corporation Act, 1951, (for short 'the Act'). According to the appellant's counsel, an agriculturist is entitled to the protection of the proviso to S.60 of the Code which provides that "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" shall not be liable to attachment or sale.

3. S.60 of the Code is included in Part II of the Code dealing with the provisions for execution. The main title given above a fasciculus of sections starting with S.60 is 'attachment'. The commencing words of S.60 are as follows:

"The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree". The proviso to the said section says that (only the relevant portions are quoted):

"Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:

(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"

The contention is that even though in the initial portion of the section the words "attachment and sale" are used conjunctively, the provision has used them disconjunctively and hence even in cases where the court proceeds to sell the properties without an attachment, as in a mortgage decree, the interdict contained in the proviso would apply. When the main section enables the court to proceed against certain properties in execution of a decree by attaching them it is to be understood that S.60 covers only those cases where a sale is preceded by attachment of the properties. Of course there can be instances where the attachment is not followed by a sale. That appears to be the reason why the words "attachment or sale" have been used in the proviso disconjunctively. But it is important to note that the term 'such' precedes both the said words. That term 'such' qualifies both the words (attachment or sale) which means that the prohibition contained in the proviso should apply to attachment and also to sale preceded by an attachment.

4. A Division Bench of this Court in Kochumariam v. Kshema Vilasam Co. (1973 K. L. T. 761) had considered the proviso to S.60 of the Code. There it was held that:

"Proviso (c) to S.60(1) cannot apply to execut