( 1 ) THIS is a judgment-debtors second appeal against an order of the lower appellate court rejecting his objection against the sale of his house in execution of a decree passed against him. It is not necessary to state the facts which have led up to this appeal as Mr. Amibika Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, argued only one question of law before me. He contended that the courts below had wrongly deprived the appellant of the status of an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 60 (c) C. P. C. merely because he was in receipt of a pension from government. The appellant is a retired Sub-Inspector getting a pension of Rs. 75/9/ -. This fact was taken into account by the courts below in holding that, as the appellants main income was from this pension, he could not be considered as an agriculturist under Section 60 (c ). The appellant had contended that, as he was living in the village and cultivating his holdings, he must be regarded as an agriculturist and given protection of Section 60 (c), which prohibits the attachment or sale of a house and other buildings belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him.

( 2 ) IN my view the view taken by the courts below is erroneous. It is obvious that a receipt of pension does not create in law a profession or calling of the pension-holder. In fact there is no such thing as a profession of a pension-holder. Pension is granted for past services and may be an indication of a mans calling in the past, but it cannot determine his profession after retirement. It is a common knowledge that retired soldiers return to their native villages and settle down as cultivators of their ancestral holdings. Retired judges are known to have commenced practice at the Bar. The receipt of a pension by a retired soldier or a policeman would not affect his status as an agriculturist any more than the receipt of a pension by a retired judge would affect his status as a lawyer if he reverts to the Bar. A pension-holder can draw his pension and also pursue any profession he likes unless he is prohibited by the terms and conditions of his pension from taking any particular calling.

( 3 ) SECTION 60 (1) (c), C. P. C. does not define an agriculturist. It merely says : "houses and buildings (with materials and the sites thereon and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him" shall not be liable to attachment or sale in execution of a decree. In some decisions the view has been taken that the test of an agriculturist is the proportion or ratio of his income from agriculture to his income from other sources. In "bachan Singh v. Bhika Singh", AIR 1927 All 601 Iqbal Ahmad, j. observed that an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 60 (c) is one who is "ordinarily designated as agriculturists", but he went on to say:

". . . . . . . that is, whose principal source of livelihood is by cultivation". In "girwar Dayal v. Narain singh", AIR 1928 All 211 (2), Ashworth, J. observed: "if cultivation occupies a substantial portion of his (the judgment-debtors) time and activities he must be deemed to be an agriculturist. . . . . . "

( 4 ) WITH great respect, the word "agriculturist", in my opinion, provides the key to its own meaning. It means, according to Murrarys dictionary, "a professed cultivator of the land, a farmer". According to the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, an agriculturist is a person skilled in agriculture, that is, in the art or practice of cultivating the land. It is also defined as a farmer. According to its plain meaning, therefore, the word agriculturist means a person engaged in agriculture, that is, in the practice of cultivating the land.

( 5 ) IT is not necessary that a person, in order to qualify as an agriculturist within the meaning of section 60 (c) must show that agriculture is the main source of livelihood. He is under no obligation to prove that he is a prosperous or successful