PARVATANENI LAKSHMAYYA Vs. OFFICIAL RECEIVER OF KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the insolvent is an "agriculturist" within the meaning of Section 60(1) (c) of the Civil Procedure Code and this petition has been posted before a Bench of three Judges because in Muthuvenkatarama Reddi V/s. Official Receiver, South Arcot (1925) 50 M.L.J. 90: I.L.R. 49 Mad. 227 Devadoss and Waller, JJ., took the view that in order to constitute an agriculturist within the meaning of that section agriculture must be the sole source of living whereas in Gopalam Garu V/s. Adusumilly Gopalakrish nays Garu Devadoss and Wallace, JJ., held that in order to constitute an agriculturist it is enough if his chief source of income is agriculture. These decisions are obviously in conflict.

(2.) In the present case, the facts are that the petitioner's income was derived from agriculture, as a mahazadar enjoying kists paid by his ryots, from a motor business and a tobacco trade. He became insolvent and. it was claimed that his house was not liable to sale because of Section 60(1) (c) of the Civil P. C.. The Subordinate Judge held that the petitioner was not an agriculturist within the meaning of that section and the District Judge affirmed that decision on appeal.

(3.) By reason of Section 60(1) (c) of the Civil P. C. "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" shall not be liable to attachment or sale; and by reason of Section 28(5) of the Provincial Insolvency Act the property of the insolvent which vests in the Official Assignee is not to include property which is exempted by the Civil P. C. from liability to attachment and sale in execution of a decree.