BALUSU PRABHAKARA PATTABHI RAMARAO Vs. CHINTAPALLI VENKATA SUBBAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the decree-holder in O.S. No. 130 of 1947 and the respondent in appeal was one of the judgment debtors. When four items of property belonging to the judgment debtor, respondent in this appeal, were attached in execution of the decree, she applied for exemption of those items from attachment under Section 60(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. There was little dispute about item 4 even in the trial court. The learned District Munsif held that the judgment debtor was entitled to the benefit of Clause (c) but only with respect to item 1, the house and item 2, the vacant site attached to the house, but not with reference to item 3, a detached vacant site. Against that order of the learned District Judge, the decreeholder has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The learned District Judge has found that the judgment debtor, Venkatasubbamma, had a small piece of agricultural property of her own. Besides, she cultivated 13 acres of land on lease. In fact she was a joint lessee in the Kadappas executed in favour of the decreeholder himself. These findings of fact are binding upon me in second appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of the admission of the judgment debtor's husband examined as P. W. 1, that the judgment debtor herself never came out of the house and never herself actually cultivated any portion of the lands in her possession, she could not be an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 60(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel relied upon Lakshmayya v. Official Receiver, Kistna', 1LR (1937) Mad. 777. The Full Bench no doubt said,