Skip to content


Pukhraj Ajayraj Oswal Vs. Prabha Vanaji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Execution Second Appeal No. 2 of 1966
Judge
Reported inAIR1970Raj108; 1969()WLN199
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 60(1)
AppellantPukhraj Ajayraj Oswal
RespondentPrabha Vanaji
Appellant Advocate S.K. Mal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate L.R. Mehta, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases Referred and Gowardhandas Surajmal Marwadi v. Mohanlal Surajmal
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - section 60(1)(c)--an agriculturist does not do agricultural labour in a year of scarcity--whether he ceases to be an agriculturist and his property is liable to attachment.;an agriculturist cannot cease to be an agriculturist in a year of scarcity when he is unable to grow sufficient food for his own necessities. if in normal years the main, source of living of a person is agriculture, then he will be regarded as an agriculturist. - .....in jalore. there is nothing on record to show that jalore is so very far from village leta. prabha stated that he keeps his implements of agriculture in his house at jalore which was attached. his witness lachhiram stated that during the rainy season prabha cultivates his fields and he keeps his implements at his field. thatimplies that for the remaining part of the year he keeps them in his house at jalore. prabha not only keeps his agricultural implements in the house, but he himself resides in it as an agriculturist. it has not been shown that he has any other house where he can reside.6. i accordingly hold that the attached house is exempt from attachment and sale under section 60(1)(c), c. p. c. and dismiss the appeal. in the circumstances of the case, i leave the parties to bear.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. This is a decree-holder's Execution Second Appeal against an appellate order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jalore holding that a house belonging to Prabhajudgment-debtor is exempt from attachment and sale under Section 60(1)(c), C. P. C.

2. As to who is an agriculturist under Section 60(1)(c) was laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Appasaheb v. Bhalchandra, AIR 1961 SC 589. It was held that:

'The word 'agriculturist' in this clause must carry the same meaning as the word 'agriculturist' in Clause (b) and the house must be occupied by him as such. Even if it is not necessary that a person must till the land with his own hands to come within the meaning of the word agriculturist he must at least show that he was really dependent for his living on tilling the soil and was unable to maintain himself otherwise. Where a person is an agriculturist in the widest sense of the term, he is not an agriculturist within the meaning of the clauses, if he is not really dependent for his maintenance on tilling the soil and is able to maintain himself otherwise'.

3. The attention of the lower courts was not drawn to this decision. They have followed Smt. Chandrawati Tewari v. U.P. Government, AIR 1961 All 183; Shiamlal v. Smt. Sahodra Devi, AIR 1960 All 429 and Gowardhandas Surajmal Marwadi v. Mohanlal Surajmal, AIR 1938 Nag 366. The decision in Shiamlal's case, AIR 1960 All 429 was overruled by the Full Bench in Chandrawati's case, AIR 1961 All 183. The law laid down in the Full Bench case also is not quite the same as that laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court.

4. I have examined the evidence on record in the light of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. I find that the evidence shows that the main source of livelihood of Prabha was agriculture. The area where he resides is an area where only one crop is grown in a year in the rainy season. Rains are also precarious. An agriculturist is occupied in the work of agriculture only for four months in the year, and for the remaining eight months, he either earns something by labour or remains idle. Prabha stated that in the year 1964, he produced 2 kalsis of bajra, in the year 1963 the crop was of 10 seis and in the year 1962, it was 20 seis. 1962 and 1963 were obviously years of scarcity. An agriculturist cannot cease to be an agriculturist in a year of scarcity when he is unable to grow sufficient food for his own necessities. If in normal years the main source of living of a person is agriculture, then he will be regarded as an agriculturist.

5. The fields of Prabha are in village Leta, but the house is in Jalore. There is nothing on record to show that Jalore is so very far from village Leta. Prabha stated that he keeps his implements of agriculture in his house at Jalore which was attached. His witness Lachhiram stated that during the rainy season Prabha cultivates his fields and he keeps his implements at his field. Thatimplies that for the remaining part of the year he keeps them in his house at Jalore. Prabha not only keeps his agricultural implements in the house, but he himself resides in it as an agriculturist. It has not been shown that he has any other house where he can reside.

6. I accordingly hold that the attached house is exempt from attachment and sale under Section 60(1)(c), C. P. C. and dismiss the appeal. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.


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