CHEDALAVADA VENKAYYA Vs. PAYIDI TATAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question is whether the appellant's house which is under attachment is exempted from attachment under Section 60(1)(c) of the Civil P. C.. Both the Courts below have held that it was not.

(2.) I am not prepared to go as far as to say that because an agriculturist has a shed in or near his field he cannot get exemption under Section 60(1)(c) for the house in which he ordinarily resides, unless he proves that he has tethered some cattle in the house or keeps agricultural implements there. An agriculturist, like every person, must have a house in which to live; and the fact that he has a shed in or near his field in which he may keep some implements and perhaps spend an hour, or two in the middle of the day while engaged in agricultural operations, would not disenable him from retaining possession of the house in which he ordinarily resides, provided that that house is not on a scale inappropriate to an agriculturist.

(3.) Unfortunately, neither side has let in any evidence with regard to the purpose for which the house in question is used. We only know that the shed near the appellants land was, until a short time before the attachment, used by them for agricultural purposes. Whether they ordinarily resided in the shed or in the house under attachment, we do not know; and we have no idea of the size of the building under attachment. As the burden lies upon the agriculturist of proving that a particular house is exempt from attachment, his house can be attached and sold unless he proves that it is not liable for attachment. It cannot be said in this case that they have proved that their house is exempt. The mere fact that the respondent in the counter did not expressly say that the appellants were not residing in that house, does not excuse the appellants from examining themselves and proving their case.