MT BHUTA Vs. BISHESHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this case was a judgment-debtor in the lower Court. There is a decree for money against her, and in execution of it, her two houses were attached. She came to Court with the allegations that she was: an agriculturist and the houses were occupied by her and that therefore, these were exempt under Section 60, Clause (c) of the Civil Procedure Code from attachment. The decree- holder in his reply did not state at all what was her occupation, if the judgment- debtor was not an agriculturist. He simply stated that the judgment-debts were due and she was bound to pay. The learned Subordinate Judge examined evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant had ceased to be an agriculturist inasmuch as she had sold her fixed rate tenancy in 1919.

(2.) In this Court it has bean urged that the evidence has been wrongly weighed by the lower Court and that it does establish that the appellant is an agriculturist.

(3.) It appears that the decree-holder himself was examined at a previous stage in this very litigation. This was on the 11 of November, 1922. It further appears that somebody else had laid claim to one of three houses originally attached, then the decree-holder stated the whole history of the residence of the appellant in the village Kanta. Ha said that the appellant was unhappy in her husband's house and came to live in her father's village Kanta. There she was given some land to live on, and her father built these houses for her. He also stated that the appellant owned two pairs of bullocks for cultivation. Besides this admission of the decree- holder, there is evidence of the appellant herself and some patwari's papers. Two patwaris were examined and they said that in their papers the appellant was still recorded as a fixed rate tenant of certain lands and lets a Shikmi tenant of three years standing of others. The appellant also summoned one Jageshar, who deposed that she had 18 or 20 bighas of land of her own and had taken so ma shikmi land from him on rant. But when the appellant was asked by the decree- holder if she knew Jageshar, she denied. Prom this fact an inference has boon drawn that the story of the Jagashar's sub-letting any land is untrue. I am unable to agree with this view. It is admitted that although the appellant belongs to an agricultural caste namely, Kurcni, she lives more or less in seclusion and her son looks after her cultivation. On evidence, I am satisfied that the only means of livelihood of appellant is agriculture and aha has no other means of livelihood.