SEELI TIRUPATI Vs. BHUPATHIRAJU JANIKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two points that arise for consideration in this appeal are :

(2.) On the first question, it must be stated at once that the Civil Procedure Code has not defined the word "agriculturist", and therefore the question must be resolved by a reference to the decisions bearing on the point. This question directly arose for consideration before a Bench of the Bombay High Court in Devara Hegde v. Vaikunt Subaya, ILR 41 Bom 475 : (AIR 1917 Bom 253). In that case, one of the judgment-debtors filed an application claiming that the house attached in execution should not be sold by reason of the provisions of Section 60(c), C. P. C. as he was an agriculturist. It was admitted that the defendants, judgment-debtors lived solely by agricultural labour. They had no lands either as owners or as tenants but they work for others. They continued to live in the house which is their ancestral house from the time they held the lands as their own. It was held by Scott, C. J. who spoke for the Court, thus: "A person who earns his livelihood by tilling the soil can hardly be said not to he a professed cultivator of the land. I do not think that in ordinary parlance there is any difference in meaning between "an agricultural population" and "a population of agriculturists". If therefore a professed cultivator of the land earning his remuneration from another employer owns a house in which he lives he should be protected from the attachment of that house by reason of the provisions of Section 60(c)". In this view, the learned Judges held that the house, is protected from attachment.

(3.) This case was followed by a Bench of the Nagpur High Court in Gowardhandas v. Mohanlal, AIR 1938 Nag 366 where it is laid down that a person who cultivates the land as a labourer, though neither a land owner nor a tenant, is an agriculturist. That is one of the several propositions laid down by the Bench of that High Court. At p. 368, the learned Judges observed thus . "In ILR 41 Bom 475: (AIR 1917 Born 253) it was held that a person who has become mere labourer is, being a person engaged in cultivating the soil, an agriculturist though he owns no land and is not a tenant. We respectfully agree. Such a person is engaged in agriculture." This decision of the Nagpur High Court was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Appasaheb v. Bhalachandra, AIR 1961 SC 589. The question which arose for consideration in the case decided by the Supreme Court was whether the house, which belonged to a judgment-debtor owning a watan property is liable to attachment under Section 60(c), C. P. C., inasmuch as the judgment-debtor in that case had very extensive landed property and was also getting an income of Rs. 25,000.00per year from the lands. He was keeping his cattle in the Wada (house) where his servants also stayed, and his agricultural implements were kept. The produce of the lands was also stored in the Wada. The judgment-debtor used to supervise the agricultural operations and his servant. The judgment-debtor also owned lands in 10 or 12 villages yielding an income of Rs. 35,000.00 to Rs. 40,000.00 from his lands. It was also in evidence that the judgment-debtor and his brothers worked personally in the fields. But it was found on the evidence that the judgment-debtor was not entirely dependent for his livelihood upon the income from the home-farm and that apart from the income of the home-farm, be had substantial income from the other lands, and there was nothing to show that this income derived from the other lands was the result of cultivation by him. On those facts, the question for consideration was, whether the Wada or the house should be attached. The Supreme Court referred to a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 1937 Mad 551) (FB) and several other decisions on the point, and finally by a majority held as follows: "On a fair reading of the provisions of Clause (b), that which is saved to an agriculturist are his implements with which he tills the soil and such, cattle and seed-grain which, in the opinion of the Court, are necessary for him to use in order to enable him to maintain himself." It was also observed therein : "The word "agriculturist" in this clause must, carry the same meaning as the word "agriculturist" in Clause (b) and the house must be occupied by him as such. The object of the exemption in Clause (c) apparently is that an agriculturist should not be left without a roof over his head. In other words, the Legislature intended by Clauses (b) and (c) to prevent an agriculturist becoming destitute and homeless." The learned Judges of the Supreme Court also observed as follows : "The Wada in question is a big structure where the appellants reside but if they are not agriculturists within the meaning of that word in Section 60, the Wada cannot be exempted from attachment. It seems to us that even if it is not necessary that a person must till the land with his own hands to come within the meaning of the word "agriculturist" he must at least show that he was really dependent for his living on tilling the soil and was unable to maintain himself otherwise. In the present case it is quite obvious that even if the appellants can be described as agriculturists in the widest sense of that term, they are not agriculturists who are really dependent for their maintenance on tilling the soil and that they arc unable to maintain themselves otherwise."