NARAYANAN Vs. GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT-debtor is the revision petitioner. The short question for consideration is whether items 1 to 7 and 12 in the attachment schedule of movables belonging to him are 'tools of artisans' exempted from attachment under proviso (b) to S. 60 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The execution court answered the question in the negative and hence this revision.

(2.) THE disputed items are drilling machine, lathe, G. I. pipes etc. THEy belong to Srikrishna Industries of which revision petitioner is the proprietor.

(3.) T. R. Punnavanam v. F. Muthuswami (AIR 1962 Madras 444)took the view that the term 'tools' occurring in clause (b) of proviso to s. 60 (1) includes not only simple instruments but also complicated mechanical instruments used by the artisans for the purpose of their trade. At the same time the term 'artisan' was held to be restricted to a handicrafts-man or artificer who is employed in any of the industrial arts. An employer of labour was found to be not an artisan.