Back
1979 Supreme(MP) 95
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. P. Singh, C. J. , U. N. Bhachawat and C. P. Sen, JJ.
NARSINGH - Appellant
Versus
KAMANDAS - Respondents
Misc. (Second) Appeal 27 Of 1975
Decided On : 07/20/1979
P.V.PANDIT, S.C.JAIN
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 60(1)(b) of the Code, specifically regarding the exemption of implements of husbandry from attachment and sale in execution of a decree.
Headnote:
implements of husbandry - Execution Proceedings - Section 60(1)(b) of the Code - [Section 60(1)(b)] - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 60(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, focusing on the exemption of implements of husbandry from attachment and sale in execution of a decree. The court analyzed the qualifying expression 'as may, in the opinion of the Court, be necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood' and its application to the judgment-debtor's electric motor pump and cart. The court concluded that the electric motor pump was an implement of husbandry exempted from attachment, while the attached cart was not considered an implement of husbandry and was not exempted from attachment.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment-debtor objected to the attachment of his electric motor pump and cart, claiming that they were exempted from attachment under Section 60(1)(b) of the Code as implements of husbandry necessary for his agricultural operations. The lower courts upheld the attachment, leading to a reference to the Division Bench for reconsideration of the interpretation of the relevant provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the electric motor pump was an implement of husbandry exempted from attachment, while the attached cart was not considered an implement of husbandry and was not exempted from attachment.
Issues: The issues before the court were: (i) Whether the qualifying expression in Section 60(1)(b) of the Code qualifies the expression 'his implements of husbandry'; (ii) Whether the electric motor pump belonging to the judgment-debtor, an agriculturist, is an implement of husbandry exempted from attachment; (iii) Whether the attached cart of the judgment-debtor is an implement of husbandry exempted from attachment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 60(1)(b) of the Code, emphasizing the exemption of implements of husbandry from attachment. It analyzed the meaning of 'implements of husbandry' and the qualifying expression 'as may, in the opinion of the Court, be necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood', ultimately determining the exempt status of the electric motor pump and the non-exempt status of the attached cart.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the appeal, directing the release of the electric motor pump from attachment, while making no order regarding the attached cart.
( 1 ) THE reference to this Bench arises out of the execution proceedings pending in the Court of the III Civil Judge, Class II, Chhindwara, in Execution Case No. 165-A of 1969, which was initiated on the application of the decree-holderrespondents for the execution of their money decree against the judgment-debtor-appellant. The reference has arisen in the following manner.
( 2 ) AN electric motor pump belonging to the judgment-debtor, which has been fitted in his well, situated in agricultural field for irrigating the field, and his cart have been attached on the application of the decree-holders-respondents by the said Executing Court. The judgment-debtor filed an objection to this attachment submitting that he was an agriculturist and the attached articles are the implements of husbandry which are necessary to enable him to carry on his agricultural operation and earn livelihood and as such the articles were exempted from attachment under proviso (b) to Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'the Code' ). The executing Court vide its order dated 20th July, 1974, holding that the attached articles cannot be said to be necessary to enable the judgment-debtor to earn his livelihood as an agriculturist rejected the objection relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Appasaheb v. Bhalchandra AIR 1961 SC 589 and a decision of this Court in Mathurabai v. Kanhaiyalal AIR 1959 MP 375.
( 3 ) ON an appeal against this order by the judgment-debtor in the Court of the additional District Judge, Chhindwara, being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1974, the order of the Executing Court has been upheld by the Additional District judge vide his order dated 18-11-1974, and the appeal has been dismissed.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the judgment-debtor preferred a second appeal in this Court being Misc. (Second) Appeal No. 27 of 1975, which came up for hearing before a single Judge, Mr. Justice Raina (as he then was ). The learned single Judge was of the opinion that in Section 60 (1) (b) of the Code the expression "as may, in the opinion of the Court, be necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood" was relatable only to the expression "such cattle and seed grain" and not to the words "his implements of husbandry" : but, as in the Division Bench decision of this Court in Mathurabai v. Kanhaiyalal (supra), the view was taken that the expression "as may, in the opinion of the Court, be necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood" qualify the words "his implements of husbandry" also, he directed the case to be laid before the Chief Justice, with a recommendation that the matter be placed before a Bench of two or more judges, vide order dated 21-7-1975. The matter was then referred to a Division bench. The Division Bench vide order dated 24-11-1977, ordered that as the question referred to, involved reconsideration of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mathurabai v. Kanhaiyalal (supra), the question should be considered by a larger Bench. Thus, the matter has been placed before this bench.
( 5 ) AT the outset it may be mentioned that there is a concurrent finding and also not disputed before us that the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist. It is also conceded by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor that there is no evidence in the instant case that the attached cart is being used for agricultural operations by the judgment-debtor. It is in this backdrop that we shall proceed to answer the reference. ( 6 ) AS would appear from the order of the learned single Judge, the whole case has been referred, to quote:
"i, therefore, refer this case to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice with a recommendation that it may be placed before a Bench of two or more judges since it involves a question of law of importance and requires reconsideration of the decision of this Court in Mathurabai v. Kanhaiyalal. "
No particular questions have been framed for being answered. In the light of the con
