JUDGMENT

Nanavatty, J - This is a second execution of decree appeal filed by the decree-holder appellant Baij Nath Prasad against the judgment and decree of. the Court of the District Judge of Sitapur partly upholding the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sitapur.

2. Baij Nath Prasad decree-holder appellant held a decree against Ganga Prasad, father of the respondent Mauji Lal pat-wari. Ganga Prasad is dead and in execution of the decree a grove and a house left by Ganga Prasad have been attached. Mauji Lal filed objections against the attachment and contended that the grove and the house were not liable to attachment because the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in them and it was further contended that the house was the house of an agriculturist and was therefore not liable to be attached under the provision of Section 60, Clause (c), Civil P.C. The learned Subordinate Judge disallowed the objections of the judgment-debtor. In appeal the learned District Judge held that the patwari Mauji Lal was an agriculturist and that the provisions of Section 60(1)(c), Civil P.C., applied to the house. He accordingly directed that the house in question be released from attachment but he ordered that the grove be sold in execution of the decree. The decree-holder has filed this second appeal and the judgment-debtor has filed cross-objections. In second appeal it has been strenuously argued by the learned Counsel for the decree-holder on the strength of the rulings reported in Jamna Prasad Raut v. Raghunath Prasad, (1913) 85 All 307 and Sukhraj Kuar v. Hantam Singh, AIR 1932 Oudh 76 that the term agriculturist" as used in Section 60(c), Civil P.C., is to denote a person making his living by tilling the soil and that the judgment-debtor Mauji Lal patwari who is a Government servant cannot be said to have his sole means of livelihood by cultivating the land. There is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the decree-holder but from the wajibularz of villa-ges Chajjan and Kanmau it would appear that Mauji Lal and other tenants have got no saleable interest in the house in which they reside and as they have got no saleable interest in the house there is no point in the decree-holder attaching the house. The learned Counsel for the decree-holder argues that this is a matter that can be taken up later when the house is actually sought to be sold by the decree-holder. In my opinion once the house is attached an auction sale follows as a matter of course. In my opinion therefore the decree-holder cannot attach the house in face of the provisions contained in the wajibularaiz that the judgment-debtor has got no saleable interest in the house.

3. Similarly as regards the groves. The wajibularz clearly shows that the groves in dispute arenot saleable in execution of the decree obtained by the decree-holder Baijnath Prasad. The learned District Judge has held that this objection could only be raised by the zamindar himself, but it seems to me to be idle for the decree-holder to attach the property when the judgment-debtor is proved to have no saleable interest in it. I therefore allow the cross-objections and dismiss the appeal and hold that the house and the grove lands are not liable to attachment. I make no order as to costs.