SHAHOOL HAMEED Vs. RAMAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for decision in this second appeal, is whether the respondents, who are the judgment-debtors, are entitled to the benefit of the exemption under Clause (c) of S. 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, from attachment or sale of property in execution of the decree, obtained by the appellant. That provision reads: "provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely: - xxxx (c) houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him;"

(2.) OF the respondents, respondents 2 to 6 are the sisters of the first respondent. The facts as found by the two courts below and as summarised by the District Judge in appeal are as follows: "most of the respondents, if not all of them, are engaged in agricultural labour. They do work throughout the agricultural seasons. They get their wages in paddy which they take to this house and convert it into rice. They also store the same to be used for the non-agricultural seasons of the year. This is their main means of livelihood. They have no other house except this house to live. This house is near the houses of big agriculturists. " After citing a few decided cases the judge proceeded to observe: "they only decide that to claim the exemption, the following matters have to be proved. (a) The judgment debtors are farm and agricultural labourers. (b) Their main means of livelihood depend upon their work in agricultural lands. (c) The house they occupy must be reasonably near the agricultural lands. That is to say, they live in that house and do their agricultural work. These are proved in this case. " No good ground has been made out in second appeal to disturb these findings.

(3.) IT seems well established that the house or building in respect of which exemption is claimed must not only belong to the agriculturist, but also be occupied by him as such. I do not subscribe to the view contended for, that the house or building must be situated so near the agricultural land and must have been used exclusively in connection with agricultural operations. I do not think that this is the meaning and purpose of this limitation, which judicial decisions have imposed. An agriculturist may in addition to his habitation own other buildings in which he may carry on other activities. They are not to be excluded from attachment and sale merely because they too belong to him. The Supreme Court has only held in the case cited, that the house must be occupied by the agriculturist as such, the intendment being that an agriculturist should not be left without a roof over his head. In a very early case Radhakisan Hakumji v. Balvant Ramji ILR. VII Bom. 530 Mr. Justice West said, "the exemption is of a house or building occupied by an agriculturist, and this, we think, means a house dwelt in by an agriculturist as such, and the farm buildings appended to such dwelling. IT does not include other houses, which in one sense may be occupied; what is meant is a physical occupation, by an owner, of his house as a dwelling appropriate or convenient for his calling," In Atmaram v. Mt. Radha Bai AIR. 1927 Nag. 374 the court held, that unless the words "as such" at the end of Cl. (c) of S. 60 were inserted, impossible results would follow, being, "the exemption from attachment of the residential mansion of a millionaire banker who is also a tenant of a few acres of land. . . . If a man who is mainly an agriculturist and cultivates his own land has a grocery shop in a house other than his residence, even in the same village, would the shop building be exempt from attachment?" IT is in this sense, that the limitation must be understood, and not in the sense, that the house has some integral connection with the agricultural operations or with the land on which they are done. IT has been found in the present case, that the respondents were living in the house sought to be attached and while so living, they carried on agricultural operations. Agricultural labour was the occupation of most of them, if not all. When they received their wages in paddy, they stored what remained of it, pounded it into rice and used such rice for consumption. There were extensive agricultural lands very near their house. In these circumstances, it is legitimate to infer, that they were living in the house for carrying on their agricultural occupation and earning their livelihood. This is sufficient in my opinion for holding, that they occupied the house as agriculturists and in order to earn their living by agriculture; more than this is not necessary. IT was not suggested, that they owned another house or that they were using this house except as their habitation. I hold that this second appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.