ARMUGHA GOUNDER AND ANR. Vs. K. MARAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,627.32 from the defendant being the arrears of rent.. The petitioners had previously filed O.S. No. 244 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Gobichettipalayam and attached the house property belonging to the respondent worth about Rs. 4,000. Along with the present suit the petitioners filed I.A. No. 2263 of 1971 under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment before judgment of the oil engine fitted to the well on the ground that the respondent was trying to sell the oil engine, that he is heavily involved in debts and that the plaintiffs cannot realise the decree if the oil engine is allowed to be sold.

(2.) THE respondent (defendant) filed a counter contending that he was not trying to sell the oil engine, that the oil engine being an agricultural implement is not liable for attachment under Section 60(1)(b) of the Code. The lower Court dismissed the application holding that the engine is not permanently fixed to the earth, and that it is exempt from attachment under Section 60(1)(b) of the Code.

(3.) IN Udharam Dalumal v. Rozi Shambe, A.I.R. 1939 Sind. 96 it was held that the term implement of husbandry occurring in Clause (b) to proviso (1) to Section 60 should be interpreted in a fair and reasonable manner and with a generous spirit and not in a narrow and mean manner. In the course of the judgment the learned Judges observed that Clause (b) should not be interpreted in so narrow a manner as to limit its application only to such things, as wooden ploughs or bullocks, such things as are necessary to maintain the poorest type of agriculturists. Their Lordships observed at page 96 as follows: