1. This is a second appeal by Kalyan Baksh, son of Kanhaiyalal, judgment-debtor, in execution proceedings.
2. The respondents, Kalyan Baksh and Moolchand, sons of Sunderlal, had a money decree against the appellant. The appellant had a Halwai shop at Gangapur. The respondents, in execution or their decree, attached the entire articles in the shop. The judgment-debtor made an objection that he was an artisan, and the articles attached were tools, and were, therefore, exempt from attachment under Section 60(1)(b) of the Cede of Civil Procedure.
The learned Munsif of Gangapur released from attachment certain articles which he considered were used in the making of sweets. The other articles were not considered necessary for the purpose of making sweets, taking into consideration the weak financial resources of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal, but the same judgment was upheld. The judgment-debtor has come in second appeal.
3. It may be said at once that there can be no distinction between the articles released and the articles which, have not been released, for even the unreleased articles could also be used in the manufacture or sale of the sweets. If, therefore, the judgment-debtor was to be considered an artisan, there should have been a release from attachment of all the articles that were attached from his shop, and it is no argument for the decree-holders that only some of the articles were sufficient for the judgment-debtor to earn his livelihood according to his lean resources.
It is not the Immediate needs of the artisan that are relevant, but the important point to be determined is whether a particular article is or is not a tool of the artisan. It may be that he may not use it at a particular moment, but it would still be a tool if he can use it when he has more work to do. The ground on which the release from attachment has been refused is not sound.
4. This, however, does not dispose of the case, for I am inclined to the opinion that a Halwai is not an artisan, and the various utensils which are utilised by him for the purpose of making sweets or for placing sweets for sale are not tools of an artisan. An artisan, mentioned in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 60 is a handicraftsman or a mechanic who, with the aid of his tools and skill, makes any article.
A Halwai not only makes sweets, but he engages himself in the purchase of raw materials and sale of the finished products. He is a manufacturer. He processes the raw materials and turns out finished goods, and sells them. He is, therefore, more in the nature of a shop-keeper who purchases commodities and after processing them, puts them into the market.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Mahabir Prasad v. Raghunandan Lal, AIR 1935 All 848 (A), for the proposition that a sweetmeat vendor is an artisan when he prepares sweetmeats himself personally. The judgment-debtor in that case was presumably employed by somebody else for the purpose of making sweets, and the instruments used in making the sweats were of the judgment-debtor. The Madras High Court, however has not agreed with the viewtaken by the Allahabad High Court in the aforesaid case, and it was held in RamachandraAyyar v. Sesha Ayyangar, AIR 1943 Mad 523 (B), that
'the cooking vessels used by a sweetmeat-seller are not tools of an artisan and do not fall within Section 60(1)(b) for being exempted from attachment'.
It was observed that-
'The word 'artisan' has a well-recognised meaning and is roughly synonymous with 'hand-craftman' or 'mechanic'.'
The case was, however, of a judgment-debtor who employed various persons under him fur the purpose of making sweets. With great respect I agree with the observations in the Madras case that the word 'artisan' when taken with the word 'tools' indicates that the word 'artisan' should mean a handicraftsman, mechanic, an artificer. It cannot mean a person who buys raw materials, processes them into finished products and sells them, which is the case of a Halwai under consideration.
A Halwai has to keep a shop to sell his goods, but an artisan need not do so. More often the artisan uses his own tools and skill on wages, which may be either paid per day or according to the work done. The sale and purchase of the raw materials do not ordinarily form part of the Business of artisans. In the view taken by me, the judgment-debtor is not entitled to the release of the articles from attachment, and he should be content with the relief that he has got, though erroneously.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Noorder as to costs.