1985 Supreme(MP) 790

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
V.D. GYANI, J.
Yeshchandra - Petitioner
Versus
Dakhabai - Respondent
M.A. No. 239 of 1980 (J)
Decided On : 04-04-1985

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - S. 60 (1) (C) - word 'agriculturist' as used in this provision - he need not cultivate the land personally.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - S. 60 - judgment debtor an agriculturist - part of his house used for residence and remaining for keeping agricultural implements - house not liable to attachment.

       Short Note

       1. The appellant challenges the order dated 23 - 6 - 80 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kukshi thereby partly rejecting the appellant's objection about attach ability of a house under section 60 (1) proviso (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

       2. The appellant judgment - debtor's house was attached in execution of a decree Appellant's objection was that he was a small agriculturist and the house attached was in his occupation, as such not attachable. Admittedly, the house is in two parts, the first part comprises of two and a half CHASHMAS while the other part consists of four CHASHMAS. The first is used for residential purpose and the other part is used for keeping cattle. The Court has released that part of the house which is used for residence from attachment, as for the rest the objection is rejected, hence this appeal.

       Held: Shri Garg contends that the Court below has proceeded on an erroneous reading as can be seen from para. 8 of the impugned order, resulting in the conclusion that the appellant has two houses. Para 8 of the order refers to the objector's statement para 3 as recorded before the executing Court.

        ,d edku <+kbZ p'esa dk cuk gS nwljk pkj p'esa dk cuk gS ;g dguk fMØh/kkjh dk xyr gSA

       3. The Court below has failed to see the denial made by the appellant - objector about the existence of two houses and this has resulted acceptance of the objection in part and rejection in part.

       4. Shri Waghmare appearing for the respondent has contended that the appellant - objector is not himself cultivating the land, but he is getting it done through servants. The word" agriculturist, as used in section 60 (I) proviso (c) does not lay down any such condition. The agriculturist must cultivate for himself.

       5. Proviso (c) read as a whole also does not limit the user of the house to 'residential purpose'

       6. The finding about two houses cannot be upheld in view of the statement of the objector. Appeal allowed.