Skip to content


Nagendra Nath Sarkar Vs. Krishnapada Sarkar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Cal425
AppellantNagendra Nath Sarkar
RespondentKrishnapada Sarkar and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....60(1), clause (c), civil p.c.2. the only point in dispute is as to whether or not the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist within the meaning of that clause. it appears to us from the evidence that the appellant has got about 20 or 25 bighas of cultarable land with regard to which he has been recorded as an occupancy raiyat. he admits in his deposition that he does not actually cultivate all these lands with his own hands, and gets them cultivated under the bhag system, by letting them out to bhag chasis. the other income which he derives from his zemindary properties is only rs. 25. from the facts, appearing on evidence, it seems to us that' the appellant is an agriculturist. there is no opposition on behalf of the respondents in this appeal. in these circumstances, we allow the.....
Judgment:

B.K. Mukherjea, J.

1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor and is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Burdwan, dated 25th January 1941, dismissing the appellant's objection to attachment and sale of his residential house on the ground that it was exempted from attachment under Section 60(1), Clause (c), Civil P.C.

2. The only point in dispute is as to whether or not the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist within the meaning of that clause. It appears to us from the evidence that the appellant has got about 20 or 25 bighas of cultarable land with regard to which he has been recorded as an occupancy raiyat. He admits in his deposition that he does not actually cultivate all these lands with his own hands, and gets them cultivated under the bhag system, by letting them out to bhag Chasis. The other income which he derives from his zemindary properties is only Rs. 25. From the facts, appearing on evidence, it seems to us that' the appellant is an agriculturist. There is no opposition on behalf of the respondents in this appeal. In these circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge, and direct that the house of the petitioner be released from attachment. We make no order as to costs in this appeal.

Blank, J.

3. I agree.


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