Skip to content


Balusu Prabhakara Pattabhi Ramarao Vs. Chintapalli Venkata Subbama - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.A.A.O. No. 88 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Mad807; (1952)1MLJ291
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 60 and 60(1)
AppellantBalusu Prabhakara Pattabhi Ramarao
RespondentChintapalli Venkata Subbama
Appellant AdvocateM.P. Somasundaram, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD. Narasaraju, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredLakshmayya v. Official Receiver
Excerpt:
- .....the decree, she applied for exemption of those items from attachment under section 60(1)(c) of the civil procedure code. there was little dispute about item 4 even in the trial court. the learned district munsif held that the judgment debtor was entitled to the benefit of clause (c) but only with respect to item 1, the house and item 2, the vacant site attached to the house, but not with reference to item 3, a detached vacant site. against that order of the learned district judge, the decreeholder has preferred this appeal.2. the learned district judge has found that the judgment debtor, venkatasubbamma, had a small piece of agricultural property of her own. besides, she cultivated 13 acres of land on lease. in fact she was a joint lessee in the kadappas executed in favour of the.....
Judgment:

Rajagopalan, J.

1. The appellant was the decree-holder in O.S. No. 130 of 1947 and the respondent in appeal was one of the judgment debtors. When four items of property belonging to the judgment debtor, respondent in this appeal, were attached in execution of the decree, she applied for exemption of those items from attachment under Section 60(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. There was little dispute about item 4 even in the trial court. The learned District Munsif held that the judgment debtor was entitled to the benefit of Clause (c) but only with respect to item 1, the house and item 2, the vacant site attached to the house, but not with reference to item 3, a detached vacant site. Against that order of the learned District Judge, the decreeholder has preferred this appeal.

2. The learned District Judge has found that the judgment debtor, Venkatasubbamma, had a small piece of agricultural property of her own. Besides, she cultivated 13 acres of land on lease. In fact she was a joint lessee in the Kadappas executed in favour of the decreeholder himself. These findings of fact are binding upon me in second appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of the admission of the judgment debtor's husband examined as P. W. 1, that the judgment debtor herself never came out of the house and never herself actually cultivated any portion of the lands in her possession, she could not be an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 60(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel relied upon Lakshmayya v. Official Receiver, Kistna', 1LR (1937) Mad. 777. The Full Bench no doubt said,

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

The learned Judges did not lay down as one of the conditions that the person claiming the benefit of Section 60(1)(c) Civil Procedure Code must himself or herself actually cultivate the land, and the cultivation of the land through any agency in part or in whole would be sufficient to take him or her outside the scope of Section 60(1)(c) Civil Procedure Code. Applying the test formulated by the Full Bench in the case cited above it has to be found that the judgment debtor Venkatasubbamma in this case 'is dependent upon the cultivation, of the lands and is unable to maintain herself otherwise.' That the whole of this cultivation is carried on through paid servants does not make her any the less an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 60(1)(c) Civil Procedure Code. She is still dependent upon the lands, and but for the lands and the income therefrom she will be unable to maintain herself is the finding of fact recorded by the learned District Judge.

4. The second appeal fails and is dismissedwith costs. (Leave to appeal is refused).


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