ORDER :- The petitioners filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,627-32 from the defendant being the arrears of rent. The petitioners had previously filed O. S. No. 244 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Gobichettipalayam, and attached the house property belonging to the respondent worth about Rs. 4,000. Along with the present suit the petitioners filed I. A. 2263 of 1971 under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, for attachment before judgment of the oil engine fitted to the well on the ground that the respondent was trying to sell the oil engine, that he is heavily involved in debts and that the plaintiff cannot realise the decree if the oil engine is allowed to be sold.

2. The respondent (defendant) filed a counter contending that he was not trying to sell the oil engine, that the oil engine being an agricultural implement is not liable for attachment under Section 60 (1) (b) of the Code. The lower Court dismissed the application holding that the engine is not permanently fixed to the earth, and that it is exempt from the attachment under Section 60 (1) (b) of the Code.

3. Against the said order the present Civil Revision Petition is filed and the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners is that the oil engine cannot be termed as tool of an artisan or that it is an implement of husbandry falling under Section 60 (1) (b) of the Code and therefore exempt from attachment.

4. In Udharam Dalumal v. Rozi Shambe, AIR 1939 Sind 96, it was held that the term 'implement of husbandry' occurring in clause (b) to proviso (1) to Section 60 should be interpreted in a fair and reasonable manner and with a generous spirit and not in a narrow and mean manner. In the course of the judgment the learned Judges observed that clause (b) should not be interpreted in so narrow a manner as to limit its application only to such things, as wooden ploughs or bullocks, such things as are necessary to maintain the poorest type of agriculturists. Their Lordships observed at page 96 as follows :

"To argue that he should then laboriously dig the land with a shovel or bring water in a pail from the well with his own hand and so earn a miserable livelihood for himself and his dependants is clearly to violate the spirit and the purpose of clause (b) to proviso (1) to Section 60, C. P. Code, which is not intended to force agriculturists back to primitive ways but to protect them in their livelihood as agriculturists by preventing the attachment even of those mechanical means whereby they plough and irrigate and cultivate the soil and obtain their livelihood as agriculturists."

5. There the learned Judges were concerned with a water pumping engine and ultimately the learned Judges held that a pumping engine is necessary for the agriculturists to irrigate and cultivate their lands and earn their livelihood as an agriculturist, with the result that it was held that the engine was not attachable. In Dwarka Prasad v. Municipal Board Meerut, AIR 1958 All 561, their Lordships held that a tractor is an agricultural implement falling under Cl. (b) of the proviso to Section 60 (1) of the Code. Their Lordships after considering the dictionary meaning of the principal words used in this clause held that what this clause aims is the protection of the implements of every farmer so as to enable him to continue earning his livelihood in the same way as he has been earning previously and there is nothing to indicate that the clause is limited to small farmers. In Mathrabai v. Kanhaiyalal, AIR 1959 Madh Pra 375 a Division Bench after considering AIR 1939 Sind 96, and AIR 1958 All 561, held that the implements of husbandry which can be exempted must, therefore, be such which are indispensable to an agriculturist and with which he can earn a livelihood. An internal combustion engine used for working a water pump was held to be not indispensable for agriculture and that the water can be drawn from the well for irrigating the fields by other m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document