Skip to content


Kuppala Subbarayudu and anr. Vs. Ammanamanchi Venkatasubbamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Mad375; (1942)1MLJ87
AppellantKuppala Subbarayudu and anr.
RespondentAmmanamanchi Venkatasubbamma
Cases ReferredMuthuvenhatarama Reddiar v. Official Receiver
Excerpt:
- - therefore the house is really used for the purpose of carrying on their calling effectively as agriculturists......in lakshmayya v. official receiver, kistna : (1937)2mlj11 for-the purpose of section 60 (1) (c), civil procedure code, an agriculturist is defined as follows:an 'agriculturist' within the meaning of section 60 (1) (c) of the code of civil procedure must be a tiller of the soil really dependent for his living on tilling the soil and unable to maintain himself otherwise.2. it seems to me having regard to evidence in this case the appellants would be agriculturists within the meaning of section 60 (1) (c). the evidence in this case is that the appellants have no other vocation except agriculture. they keep their plough, bullocks and carts in their house. therefore the house is really used for the purpose of carrying on their calling effectively as agriculturists. this would satisfy even.....
Judgment:

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. In Lakshmayya v. Official Receiver, Kistna : (1937)2MLJ11 for-the purpose of Section 60 (1) (c), Civil Procedure Code, an agriculturist is defined as follows:

An 'agriculturist' within the meaning of Section 60 (1) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure must be a tiller of the soil really dependent for his living on tilling the soil and unable to maintain himself otherwise.

2. It seems to me having regard to evidence in this case the appellants would be agriculturists within the meaning of Section 60 (1) (c). The evidence in this case is that the appellants have no other Vocation except agriculture. They keep their plough, bullocks and carts in their house. Therefore the house is really used for the purpose of carrying on their calling effectively as agriculturists. This would satisfy even the view taken in Muthuvenhatarama Reddiar v. Official Receiver, South Arcot (1925) 50 M.L.J. 90. : I.L.R. Mad. 227 on which the lower Courts rely

3. I therefore reverse the decision of both the lower Courts and hold that the appellants can claim exemption under Section 60(i)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. I direct each party to bear his own costs throughout.

4. Leave to appeal is refused.


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