ASHMATULLA SIRCAR Vs. PAN MAHMUD CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from, a decision of the learned District Judge of Rungpore reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The appellants before us are the judgment-debtors, the respondent being the decree holder. The only point that is involved in this appeal is whether the judgment-debtors are agriculturists and, as such, are entitled to claim exemption of six corrugated iron huts which have been attached in execution of, a decree against them. Section 60(c) of the Code protects from attachment in execution of the whole house occupied by an agriculturist, the common agriculturist such as lives in this country, that is, the raiyat who tills the field. The class of tenantfarmer in the western countries is practically unknown here. These alleged agriculturists in the present case have a small cultivation in the land; but apparently they have been engaged in the jute business and also as middlemen. The learned Judge has, on the evidence before him, found that these people are not agriculturists within the meaning of Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) In that the learned Judge seems to be right. The cases in the Bombay High Court show that the protection given under Section 60 to the house of an agriculturist is, that his house should be maintained. It has been held that the protection applies only to the house occupied by an agriculturist in that capacity. I should doubt whether these alleged agriculturists who have got six corrugated iron huts, belong to the class of common agriculturists that are known in Bengal, whose main source of livelihood is by cultivation. It has also been held that the plea that he is an agriculturist within the meaning of the section has got to be set up and proved by the judgment-debtor. The Judge, in any case, is entitled to hold that the judgment-debtors have not proved that they are agriculturists in the strict sense of the word as used in Section 60(c), Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Vakil, who has appeared for the appellants, has quarrelled with the use by the learned Judge of the words "strict sense" as applied to agriculturists. That term has, however, been used in the cases in Bombay and it seems to me to be a fairly accurate definition of the class of agriculturists that is meant to be protected by Section 60(c), Code of Civil Procedure. I think the learned Judge was, on the evidence before him, entitled to come to the finding as he did, that these judgment-debtors were not agriculturists within the meaning of Section 60(c). The present appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs, one gold mohur. Walmsley, J.

(3.) I agree.