JUDGMENT Bajpai J. 1. This is a decree-holder's appeal. He attached a certain house belonging to the judgment-debtor in execution o' his decree. The judgment-debtor objected that the housn was exempted from sale u/s 60, Clause (c), Code of Civil Procedure. It has got, therefore, to be seen whether the house in question belongs to an agriculturist and whether it is occupied by him. The judgment-debtor himself entered the box and deposed that his profession was that of a cultivator and that the house was in his occupation. The Court of first instance upon reading the evidence of a certain witness of the objector by name Ram Khelawan came to the conclusion that the objector had a parchun shop and he, therefore was not an agriculturist, He, therefore, overruled the objection of the judgment-debtor and allowed execution to proceed. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge read the evidence of Ram Khelawan and held that a plain reading of that evidence meant that Ram Nath had a parchun shop and that that parchun shop was of the time of his father. He held that it did not follow from that evidence that the shop was still in existence. I am not prepared to say that this reading of the evidence is incorrect. Upon the rest of the evidence he, therefore, cams to the conclusion that the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist and that he has not been keeping any shop at all. This is a finding based on evidence and it is not possible to challenge it in second appeal It is contended by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that before exemption u/s 60, Clause (c), Code of CPC can be allowed it must be established that the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist and that the house in question is not only occupied by him but that it is used for agricultural purposes. There is no warrant for such an interpretation of the particular provision under consideration. I am satisfied that the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist and that the house sought to be sold is occupied by him. There is no force in this appeal and I dismiss it with costs.