GAJULA NANGANNA Vs. EDIGA LAKSHMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed by the Judgment Debtor in E.P.No.248 of 2004 in O.S.No.656 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Dhone.

(2.) The Decree Holder filed a suit for recovery of money and it was decreed. Later, she filed E.P. for attachment of bulls and cart. The Judgment Debtor resisted the said E.P. by saying that he is an agricultural coolie, therefore, his implements cannot be attached under Section 60 of C.P.C. He filed E.A.No.34 of 2005 for raising attachment of the bulls and cart. The Execution Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, came to a conclusion that the bulls and cart are not liable for attachment. Hence, the Application was allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the Decree Holder preferred C.M.A.No.4 of 2005 before the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, and the said Appeal was allowed by setting aside the order of the Execution Court by observing that there is no evidence to the effect that the petitioner was using the bulls and cart for agricultural purpose. It is further observed that when his deposition shows that he gave his land towards discharge of his debts, the question of cultivating such lands does arise at all. He should have given evidence before the Court in support of his claim and for not doing so, an adverse inference has to be drawn. An agricultural coolie does not require any bulls and carts. Even supposing that he happneds to be an agricultural coolie, the bull and cart are not to be exempted under Section 60 of C.P.C. for the same reasons. Accordingly, the Appellate Court allowed the Appeal by setting aside the order of the Execution Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the Judgment Debtor preferred the present Appeal.

(3.) In the light of the above circumstances, the point for consideration is: Whether the bulls and cart, being the agricultural implements, are exempted under Section 60 of C.P.C. from attachment. Section 60 (c) of C.P.C. reads as follows: