Exemption from attachment u/s 60(1) of house of agriculturist.

This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.P.No.100 of 1986 in O.S.No.179 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Sirkazhi.

2. Short facts are: The respondent had obtained a money decree against the revision petitioner and had levied execution in E.P.No.100 of 1986 by attachment and sale of the properties belonging to the revision petitioner. That was resisted by the revision petitioner, who would contend that the property being proceeded with is his residential house that he is an agriculturist and so it is exempted from attachment by Sec.60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After enquiry, the learned District Munsif had held that it was not used for agricultural purpose and rejected the objections and posted the case for sale proclamation. Aggrieved by the said order, he respondent in the court below has come forward with this revision petition.

3.Mr.Rajaratnam, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that the revision petitioner was in occupation of the house for the purpose of agriculture and so exempted from attachment. I have carefully considered the submission made by him.

4. In Appasahed v. Bhalchandra, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 589, the Apex Court had occasion to consider Clauses (b) and (c) to the proviso to Sec.60(l) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In para. 33, the Apex Court has considered as to who would be an "agriculturist" within the plain language of Clauses (b) and (c) and have laid as follows:

"Therefore, it seems to me that there is no warrant for imposing any qualification on the plain meaning of the word "agriculturist" in Clauses (b) and (c). In my view, an agriculturist contemplated by the clauses is any person who occupies himself with agriculture. This is the view taken in I.L.R. 1938 Nag. 461.-A.I.R. 1938 Nag. 366 and with it I agree. A person occupying himself with agriculture would be an agriculturist though he does not cultivate with his own hands and carries on agriculture in a very large scale. He would still be an agriculturist though he has other means of livelihood besides agriculture".

The Apex Court had also considered as to who is entitled to claim the benefits of Clause (c) of the Proviso to Sec.60(l), C.P.C., and has laid as follows:

"Now, Clause (c) protects from attachment and sale houses and other buildings with the sites thereof and land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment, belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him. I think it is a fair reading of this clause to say that the houses, buildings and lands must be occupied by the agriculturist for the purpose of agriculture for the object of these clauses is to protect an agriculturist only so far as is necessary for his agricultural operations. If an agriculturist occupied a house, may as a holiday resort, there would be no reason to protect that house from attachment and sale."

From the above ruling, it is seen that the two requirements which are necessary for a person to claim exemption of a house under Clause (c) of Proviso to Sec.60(l), Code of Civil Procedure are:

"(i) he must be an "agriculturist";

(ii) he must have occupied the house for the purpose of agriculture.

5. Bearing the above, I shall now proceed to consider the evidence available in this case. The revision petitioner figured as a witness. He has stated that he is an agricultural coolie that he is having plough, spade and he storing them in his house. He has also stated that he is having a cattle shed on the northern side of the house. In cross-examination, he has stated that he is having agricultural implements in the house in the paran. He had denied the suggestion that he was not keeping the agricutlrual implements in the house. R.W.2 corroborated his evidence. According to P.W.I the revision petitioner was having the agricultural implements in the cattle shed. In cross-examination, he has stated that he did not go into the revision petitioner’s house. The cattle