ABDUL KAREEM Vs. ISMAIL SHARIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - 3rd defendant adduced no evidence not even his own in proof of his claim to be an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Travancore Cochin Cochin Act III of 1956, and in our view the court below rightly dismissed his application to stop the sale in execution of the decree obtained by the respondent - plaintiff against him and others. That the application was only a piece of obstruction entirely lacking in bona fides is apparent from the circumstance that it was filed on the eve of the sale (which has since been held) and that not even the instalment due on the assumption that Act III of 1956 applied was paid although time was taken and granted for the purpose. The mere fact that the property brought to sale, a purayidom of 35 3/4 cents in extent and mainly covered by a cinema shed and other buildings, has three bearing coconut trees and two mango saplings standing on it does not make it agricultural or horticultural land so as to make the 3rd defendant who is described as the owner thereof, an agriculturist within the definition in S.2(a) of the Act.

(2.) The other objection taken, as to the amount shown in the proclamation as due under the decree, was one that should have been taken at the settlement of the proclamation which was done after due notice.

(3.) We dismiss the appeal with costs.