Exemption from attachment of house and land.

This revision petition is directed against the order in E.P.No.12 of 1991 in O.S,No.69 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, in which learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the claim of the revision petitioner that the property attached and brought for sale was not liable for attachment. 2. Short facts are: The respondent herein had filed a suit and got a decree for money. In execution of the decree, he brought the property belonging to the revision petitioner for sale. Revision petitioner objected to the attachment and sale proceedings on the ground that the property sought to be sold is his house and appurtenant land, that he is an agriculturist and hence the property is exempt from attachment under Sec.60(.c) of the Civil Procedure Code. His objection was resisted by the decree holder/respondent. Learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the objection raised by the revision petitioner, holding that the property attached in this execution petition cannot be exempted from attachment.

3. Mr.C.Godwin, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an agriculturist and to prove that he has filed Ex.B-1. The property which was attached is a house and appurtenant land and so it is not liable for attachment. He would add that the Court below is wrong in holding otherwise. Per contra, Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that on the petitioner’s own showing he is a businessman and not an agriculturist and only in cases where the judgment-debtor is solely depending upon agriculture for his sustenance, he can claim the benefits of Sec.60(c) of the Civil Procedure Code.

.4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. Sec.60(c) of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows:

.“houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land appurtenant thereto and necessary for their employment) belonging to (an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant) and occupied by-him;”

.5. In Appasahib v. Bhalchandra, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 589, the Apex Court had occasion to consider the term ‘agriculturist’ occurring in Sec.60(b) of the Civil Procedure Code. The Apex Court has held that the provisions of Clause (b) in the case of an agriculturist, therefore, suggest a person who tills the soil in order to maintain himself. The Apex Court had also considered Sec.60(c) of the Civil Procedure Code and has laid that under Clause (c) the word ‘agriculturist’ in Clause (b) and the house must be occupied by him as such and that even if it is not necessary that a man must till the land with his own hands to come within the meaning of the word ‘agriculturist’ he must at least show that he was really depending for his living on tilling the soil and was unable to maintain himself otherwise. Where a person is an agriculturist in the widest sense of the term, he is not an agriculturist within the meaning of the clauses, if he is not really dependent upon for his maintenance on tilling the soil and is able to maintain himself otherwise. Where the person had a substantial income from lands other than the lands cultivated in homefarm and had also a substantial cash allowance from village offices, it cannot be said that the person is really dependent for his maintenance by tilling the soil and is unable to maintain himself otherwise. Such a person is not an agriculturist within the meaning of the word in Sec.60(c) of the Civil Procedure Code.

6. In Prabhu Dayal v. Ram Nik Lal, A.I.R 1979 All. 193, it was held that the two fundamental tests which may be applied for determining as to whether the objector is an ‘agriculturist’ are: (1) what is the preponderating source of his income and livelihood? and (2) does he devote the major part of his time, labour, attention and skill to the cultivation of land? In Araz Bibi v. Mubarak Ali, A.I.R. 1938 All 85, it was held that where the judgment . debtor had two sources of income on the date of