MUTHUVENKATARAMA REDDIAR Vs. OFFICIAL RECEIVER, SOUTH ARCOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants wore adjudicated insolvents on their own petition in 1922. They applied to the District Court on 24 July 1924 for a declaration that the two items of property, a terraced house and a cattle-shed, did not vest in the Official Receiver. The District Judge dismissed their petition, and they have preferred this appeal.

(2.) The contention of the appellants is that they are agriculturists and the two items which are buildings which they occupied are exempt from the operation of the Insolvency Law by reason of Section 28, Clause 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The appellants are large landed proprietors owning about 300 acres of land worth nearly a lakh and their debts amounted to Rs.. 1,35,000 and odd. The two items are valued by the appellants themselves at Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 1,000 respectively. Under Section 28, Clause 5 all properties which are exempt by reason of Section 60 of the C.P.C. or by any other law from liability to attachment and sale in execution of a decree do not vest in the Official Receiver and are, therefore, not liable to be sold to satisfy the claims of the creditors. The question for determination is whether the two buildings come within Section 60, Clause (c) of the C.P.C. Clause (c) is in these items: Houses and other buildings with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him.

(3.) In order to claim exemption under Section 60, Clause (c) two points should be found in favour of the appellants, (1) the appellants are agriculturists within the meaning of Clause (c) and (2) the house and cattle-shed are such as are mentioned in Clause (c).