GOVINDAN Vs. GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment-debtor has filed this civil revision petition and the decree-holder is the respondent. THE decree-holder filed an execution petition under Order 21, rules 37, 38, Civil procedure Code, for arresting and detaining the petitioner herein for realising the decree amount. THE petitioner pleaded that he is a small farmer entitled to the benefits of act XXXI of 1976. THE Executing Court negatived the claim holding that though the petitioner does not own more than one unit of land, he is still not entitled to the benefits of Act XXXI of 1976 as his principal means of livelihood was from income derived from a manage grove, which cannot be construed as "agricultural land". THE Civil revision petition is directed against that order of the Executing Court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that "agriculture" includes horticulture and income derived from mango grove is also income derived from agricultural land and in view of the specific finding of the executing Court that the petitioner does not own more than one unit of land, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Act XXXI of 1976.