Back
1941 Supreme(Mad) 267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Venkataramana Rao, J.
Kuppala Subbarayudu and Anr.
Versus
Ammanamanchi Venkatasubbamma
Decided On : 27.08.1941
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of agriculturist under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring a person to be really dependent on tilling the soil for their living and unable to maintain themselves otherwise.
Headnote:
Agriculturist - Definition - Exemption under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The appellants claimed exemption under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure as agriculturists, based on their dependence on agriculture for their living.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants satisfied the definition of agriculturist under Section 60(1)(c) as they were really dependent on tilling the soil for their living and had no other vocation except agriculture. The court reversed the decision of the lower courts and granted the appellants exemption under Section 60(1)(c).
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants could claim exemption under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure as agriculturists.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of agriculturist under Section 60(1)(c) to require a person to be really dependent on tilling the soil for their living and unable to maintain themselves otherwise. The evidence of the appellants' sole dependence on agriculture satisfied this definition.
Final Decision: The court reversed the decision of the lower courts and held that the appellants could claim exemption under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, directing each party to bear their own costs throughout. Leave to appeal was refused.
Venkataramana Rao, J.
1. In Lakshmayya v. Official Receiver, Kistna (1937)2MLJ11 for-the purpose of Section 60 (1) (c), Civil Procedure Code, an agriculturist is defined as follows:
An agriculturist within the meaning of Section 60 (1) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure must be a tiller of the soil really dependent for his living on tilling the soil and unable to maintain himself otherwise.
2. It seems to me having regard to evidence in this case the appellants would be agriculturists within the meaning of Section 60 (1) (c). The evidence in this case is that the appellants have no other Vocation except agriculture. They keep their plough, bullocks and carts in their house. Therefore the house is really used for the purpose of carrying on their calling effectively as agriculturists. This would satisfy even the view taken in Muthuvenhatarama Reddiar v. Official Receiver, South Arcot (1925) 50 M.L.J. 90. : I.L.R. Mad. 227 on which the lower Courts rely
3. I therefore reverse the decision of both the lower Courts and hold that the appellants can claim exemption under Section 60(i)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. I direct each party to bear his own costs throughout.
4. Leave to appeal is refused.
