Skip to content


Lakshman Mhasu Bhagat Vs. Narhari Dadasa Gujar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 706 of 1922
Judge
Reported inAIR1924Bom294; (1923)25BOMLR1211
AppellantLakshman Mhasu Bhagat
RespondentNarhari Dadasa Gujar
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1508), section 60, clause (b) - attachment-exemption-implement of husbandry-article for making jaggery.; the articles, viz., a charak, kadhai and planks of timber, used by an agriculturist for the purpose of extracting sugar juice from sugarcane which he bag grown on his field and for turning it into jaggery, are 'implements of husbandry' within the meaning of section 60, clause (b), of the civil procedure code 1808 ; and are, as such, exempted from attachment in execution of a decree for money. - .....purpose of manufacturing gul from the sugar-cane juice, and certain wooden planks required for the purpose, are 'implements of husbandry' within the meaning of section 60, clause (b), of the civil procedure code. the trial court held that they were implements of husbandry, and it was prepared to hold, if necessary, that they were tools of tin artisan within the meaning of section 60, clause (b).2. in appeal, however, the learned first class subordinate judge, with appellate powers, came to the conclusion that they were not implements of husbandry within the meaning of the section, and that they could not be treated as took of an artisan, and accordingly he set aside the order made by the trial court on this point after hearing the arguments we have come to the conclusion that these.....
Judgment:

Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.

1. The question on this second appeal is whether certain articles, which are described as Charak, an iron pot, used for the purpose of manufacturing gul from the sugar-cane juice, and certain wooden planks required for the purpose, are 'implements of husbandry' within the meaning of Section 60, Clause (b), of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court held that they were implements of husbandry, and it was prepared to hold, if necessary, that they were tools of tin artisan within the meaning of Section 60, Clause (b).

2. In appeal, however, the learned First Class Subordinate Judge, with appellate powers, came to the conclusion that they were not implements of husbandry within the meaning of the section, and that they could not be treated as took of an artisan, and accordingly he set aside the order made by the trial Court on this point After hearing the arguments we have come to the conclusion that these articles are within the scope of the expression 'implements of husbandry' as used in the said clause.

3. The defendants, who are appellants before us, are admittedly agriculturists and have reared sugar-cane crop on their field, and on that field they have used articles, one Charak, a kadhai and planks of timber for the purpose of extracting sugar juice from sugar-cane and of turning it into jaggery. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case, and it is not easy to define the exact scope of the expression 'implements of husbandry' used with reference to an Agriculturist. But having regard to the nature of the articles in this case, and the use made thereof on the field by the agriculturist, we think that it would be giving effect to the intention of the legislature to hold that they are 'implements of husbandry' within the meaning of Section 60, Clause (b), of the Civil Procedure Code. We, therefore, modify the decree of the lower appellate Court by restoring the order of the trial Court with reference to that point. The appellants to get their costs of this appeal from the plaintiff-respondent.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //