A. SEEVALAVAN Vs. V. SUBAIAH MOOPPANAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both the counsel, the C.R.P itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner is the Judgment debtor. The decree amount is said to be about Rs. 3,000/ - and odd. The respondent herein, the decree holder filed the execution petition to recover the amount by bringing the property' of the petitioner for sale. The petitioner took an objection stating that he is a poor agriculturist and except the small extent of agricultural land which is sought to be sold, he has no other property and as the property is agricultural land, the same cannot be attached and sold. The lower court overruled the objections raised by the petitioner and allowed the E.P. on the ground that the petitioner has claimed to be an agricultural labourer and not an agriculturist owning any land. As per Sec. 60 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the person who claims the benefit under the said provisions must be an agriculturist which means he must have some land and in the said land the house should be situated. When the petitioner himself did not claim to be an agriculturist he is not entitled for such benefits. In the counter, he has categorically stated that he is only a poor agriculturist. But in the argument it has been raised that the petitioner is only an agricultural labourer. In view of the slight distinction between the agricultural labourer and the agriculturist, the court below rightly found that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit as prescribed under Sec. 60 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the counter filed in the E.P. the petitioner has stated that he is a poor agriculturist and except the house in which he is living, he has no other property. In the evidence he has stated that he is keeping the agricultural tools in his house and as such the house is not liable for attachment. Moreover in the counter filed in lower court, he has not stated that he is doing the agricultural operation personally. In the absence of specific plea, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit under Sec. 60 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Hence I do not find any error in the order passed by the lower court. Hence the same is hereby confirmed and the C.R.P. is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. is also dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. However, I grant four weeks time to the petitioner to deposit the entire decree amount. In case, if the petitioner fails to pay the entire amount together with interest upto date, the lower court is directed to proceed with E.P.