Balusu Prabhakara Pattabhi Ramarao vs Chintapalli Venkata Subbama

Rajagopalan, J.—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 u/s 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 decree holder has preferred this appeal.

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 decree holder himself.

These findings of fact are binding upon me in second appeal.

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) CPC 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.

The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. (Leave to appeal is refused).