Back
Madras High Court
MAHARAJAN
T.Thiravia Nadar - Appellant
Versus
S.Thiravia Nadar - Respondent
Decided On : 07/19/1974
AGRICULTURIST - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 60(1)(C) - INTERPRETATION - MEANING OF AGRICULTURIST - HOUSE BELONGING TO AGRICULTURIST AND OCCUPIED BY HIM IS EXEMPT FROM ATTACHMENT - NO RESTRICTIVE WORDS IN CLAUSE (C) - AGRICULTURIST NEED NOT HAVE SALEABLE INTEREST IN LAND OR BE LESSEE - SUFFICIENT IF HE IS MERE TILLER OF SOIL AND DEPENDS EXCLUSIVELY FOR LIVING ON TILLNG SOIL AND IS UNABLE TO MAINTAIN HIMSELF OTHERWISE.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment debtor, an agriculturist, sought to dismiss an execution petition filed by the decree holder to bring his house to sale. The judgment debtor claimed that his house was not liable to attachment or sale under Section 60(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The decree holder contended that the judgment debtor was barred by res judicata from contending that he was entitled to the benefits of Section 60(1)(c), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as there were findings in a previous suit and appeal that he was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Courts below erred in holding that the claim of the judgment debtor for the benefits of Section 60, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was barred by res judicata. The Court held that the finding that the judgment debtor was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, could not necessarily be tantamount to a finding that he was not an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 60(1)(c), Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Issues: Whether the judgment debtor was an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 60(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the concept of an agriculturist as contemplated by Section 60(1)(c), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is different from the concept of agriculturist under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938. An agriculturist under Section 60, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, need not have a saleable interest in land or even be a lessee of the land. It is sufficient if he is merely a tiller of the soil and depends exclusively for his living on tilling the soil and he is unable to maintain himself otherwise.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the judgments of the Courts below and remanded the matter to the first Court for fresh disposal after giving both the parties an opportunity to lead fresh evidence, oral and documentary.
2. I may at the very outset say that both the Courts below have been labouring under a misconception as to the meaning of the word 'agriculturist' employed in Section 60 (1) (c), Civil P. C. Evidently, they seem to have taken for granted that the concept of an agriculturist as contemplated by Section 60 (1) (c), Civil P. C. is the same as, and in no way different from, the concept of agriculturist under Madras Act IV of 1938. Under Section 3 of Madras Act IV of 1938, an agriculturist means a person, who has a saleable interest in any agricultural or horticultural land in the State of Tamil Nadu or holds an interest in such land under a land holder under the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act 1908, as tenant, ryot or under tenure holder or holds an interest in such land recognised in the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 (Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1930) or holds a lease of such land from any person specified in sub-clause (a), (b) or (c) or in a sub-lessee of such land. The proviso to this section takes out of the definition of 'agriculturist' a person who has been assessed to income-tax or profession tax on a half yearly income of more than one thousand and two hundred rupees or has been assessed to property or house tax or land holder of estate in respect of which any sum exceeding five hundred rupees is payable as peshkush or any sum exceeding one hundred rupees is payable by way of quit rent, jodi kattubadi, poruppo or other due of a like nature. On the other hand, S. 60, Civil P. C. which was framed in 1908, had a different notion of an agriculturist altogether when it used that word in Section 60 (1) (c). The connotation of the word has been authoritatively expounded by the Supreme Court in Appasaheb v. Balachandran, AIR 1961 SC 589 at p. 595. Their Lordships said-
"The word 'agriculturist' in this clause must carry the same meaning as the word 'agricuturist' in clause (b) and the house must be occupied by h
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
