KALYAN BAKSH KANHAIYALAL Vs. KALYAN BAKSH SUNDERLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by Kalyan Baksh, son of Kanhaiyalal, judgment-debtor, in execution proceedings.

(2.) THE respondents, Kalyan Baksh and Moolchand, sons of Sunderlal, had a money decree against the appellant. The appellant had a Halwai shop at Gangapur. The respondents, in execution or their decree, attached the entire articles in the shop. The judgment-debtor made an objection that he was an artisan, and the articles attached were tools, and were, therefore, exempt from attachment under Section 60 (1) (b) of the Cede of Civil Procedure. The learned Munsif of Gangapur released from attachment certain articles which he considered were used in the making of sweets. The other articles were not considered necessary for the purpose of making sweets, taking into consideration the weak financial resources of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal, but the same judgment was upheld. The judgment-debtor has come in second appeal.

(3.) IT may be said at once that there can be no distinction between the articles released and the articles which, have not been released, for even the unreleased articles could also be used in the manufacture or sale of the sweets. If, therefore, the judgment-debtor was to be considered an artisan, there should have been a release from attachment of all the articles that were attached from his shop, and it is no argument for the decree-holders that only some of the articles were sufficient for the judgment-debtor to earn his livelihood according to his lean resources. It is not the Immediate needs of the artisan that are relevant, but the important point to be determined is whether a particular article is or is not a tool of the artisan. It may be that he may not use it at a particular moment, but it would still be a tool if he can use it when he has more work to do. The ground on which the release from attachment has been refused is not sound.