Skip to content


Bhabhoot Singh Vs. Ghanshyam Durga Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 542 of 1960
Judge
Reported inAIR1962Raj82
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 21, Rules 43 and 44 - Order 38, Rule 12
AppellantBhabhoot Singh
RespondentGhanshyam Durga Prasad
Appellant Advocate Guman Mal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Basti Chand, Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
- - 2. the plaintiff got the cut crop of the defendant lying' on the threshing-floor as well as the grain lying in a cart near the threshing-floor attached under order 38, rule 1, code of civil procedure. once the grain is separated from the chaff it ceases to remain 'agricultural produce' and there is no protection against its attachment under rule 12 of order 38. the grain as well as the straw can both be attached......produce in the possession of an agriculturist. the learned senior civil judge held that the cut crop lying on the threshing-floor was agricultural produce, but the grain lying in the cart near the threshing-floor was not such produce within the meaning of rule 12 of order 38. in my opinion his decision is correct.3. the term ''agricultural produce' has been used in the code 6f civil procedure in a special sense and not in the comprehensive sense in which the term is generally used. rule 43 of order 21 provides for the attachment of movable property other than agricultural produce in possession of the judgment-debtor. rule 44 of that order provides for the attachment of agricultural produce. a perusal of these two rules shows that the term 'agricultural produce'' as used in the code is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. This is a defendant's revision application against an appellate order of the Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi.

2. The plaintiff got the cut crop of the defendant lying' on the threshing-floor as well as the grain lying in a cart near the threshing-floor attached under Order 38, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure. An objection was filed under Order 38, Rule 12 which provides that the plaintiff cannot apply for the attachment before judgment of any agricultural produce in the possession of an agriculturist. The learned Senior Civil Judge held that the cut crop lying on the threshing-floor was agricultural produce, but the grain lying in the cart near the threshing-floor was not such produce within the meaning of Rule 12 of Order 38. In my opinion his decision is correct.

3. The term ''agricultural produce' has been used in the Code 6f Civil Procedure in a special sense and not in the comprehensive sense in which the term is generally used. Rule 43 of Order 21 provides for the attachment of movable property other than agricultural produce in possession of the judgment-debtor. Rule 44 of that Order provides for the attachment of agricultural produce. A perusal of these two rules shows that the term 'agricultural produce'' as used in the Code is confined to growing crop standing on the land on which it has grown and. cut crop lying on the threshing-floor or fodder-stack. Agricultural produce whether standing crop or severed from the soil is movable property. Unlike other movable property agricultural produce of either description cannot be attached by actual seizure as provided in Rule 43. It can only be attached in the manner provided in Rule 44.

Protection is given to the agriculturists only with regard to the agricultural produce in unfinished state either standing on the field Or lying in the threshing-floor or fodder-stack after being cut. Once the grain is separated from the chaff it ceases to remain 'agricultural produce' and there is no protection against its attachment under Rule 12 of Order 38. The grain as well as the straw can both be attached.

4. I accordingly dismiss the revision application. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs.


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