Judgment :- 1. A pump set belonging to the petitioner was attached by the local Village Officer for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and odd due from the petitioner by way of arrears of Agricultural Income-tax for the years 1969-70,1970-71 and 1971-72. The petitioner filed an objection before the District Collector, the second respondent to the above attachment and prayed for release of the pump set from attachment. Ext. P-1 dated 15-2-1973 is a copy of that objection. The second respondent did not pass any order thereon. The petitioner, therefore, filed this writ petition to quash the attachment and to direct the revenue officers concerned to return the pump set to him, 2. Several grounds of objection had been taken by the petitioner before me. But in my view, be is entitled to succeed on one ground, viz., that the pump set attached falls under clause (d) of S.9 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, and is not, therefore, attachable. Hence I am not considering the other grounds. 3. The relevant part of S.9 reads as follows: "9. Attachment not to be excessive and certain articles not to be attached. The attachment shall not be excessive, that is to say, the property attached shall, as nearly as possible, be proportionate to the amount of the arrear; and it shall not include (a) (d) implements of husbandry and one fourth the number of ploughing cattle, subject to a minimum of one pair;" The petitioner specifically alleges that the pump set attached is exempt from attachment under the above clause and that the attachment, therefore, is illegal. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. But no specific objection has been taken to the above averment. Counsel for the petitioner relied on two decisions in support of his contention. The first decision is of a Division Bench of the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Sind, in Udharam Dalumal Rozi Shambo (AIR. 1939 Sind 96). The second decision is of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dwarka Prasad v. Meerut Municipality (AIR. 1958 Allahabad 561). In the first case the property attached was a water pumping engine. In the second case the property was a ploughing tractor. In both cases, the question was whether the attached property was an implement of husbandry falling within proviso (b) of S.60 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code. 1958 Allahabad 561). In the first case the property attached was a water pumping engine. In the second case the property was a ploughing tractor. In both cases, the question was whether the attached property was an implement of husbandry falling within proviso (b) of S.60 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code. That proviso reads "60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree. (1) x x Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely: (a) (b) tools of artisans, and, where the judgment debtor is an agriculturist, his implements of husbandry and such cattle and seed grain as may, in the opinion of the Court, be necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood as such, and such portion of agricultural produce or of any class of agricultural produce as may have been declared to be free from liability under the provisions of the next following section;" It was held in both the above decisions that the attached properties would fall within the description "implements of husbandry" in the above proviso. There is an elaborate consideration of the point in the Allahabad decision wherein their Lordships referred to the meaning of the expressions "implement" and husbandry", and it came to the conclusion that a ploughing tractor was an implement of husbandry. 4. Counsel for the respondents questioned the correctness of the view in the above decision and in support of his contention he first relied on a Single Bench decision of the Nagpur High Court in Shaligram Shriram v. Sheopratap Wallabhadas (A.I.R.1939 Nagpur 3). The property concerned in that case was a motor tractor used by an agriculturist; and the court held that such a property was not entitled to the benefit of exemption from attachment under proviso (b) of S.60 (1) of the CPC. The court stated that the Civil Procedure Code was enacted in 1908 when the automobile was just making its appearance in big cities in India and the possibilities of its penetrating into the countryside for agricultural purposes was presumably not contemplated by the Legislature, and it would, therefore, be erroneous to extend the meaning of the word "implement" occurring in S.60 beyond what it was understood to signify in 1908. The second decision relied on by counsel for respondents is a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mathrabai v. Kanhalyalal (AIR. The second decision relied on by counsel for respondents is a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mathrabai v. Kanhalyalal (AIR. 1959 MP. 375). In that case the question was whether a combustion engine used for working a water pump by an agriculturist was an implement of husbandry within the meaning of proviso (b) of S.60 (1) of the CPC. The court fully adopted the view of the Nagpur High Court in the above decision and held that the proviso was intended only for the benefit of a class of husbandmen who are of the same status as artisans and who perform their agricultural operations with the help of animate beings and not inanimate machinery and that, therefore, modern machinery used by rich agriculturists would not fall within its ambit. 5. It is unnecessary for me to express any opinion on the above conflicting judicial views, since I am not concerned in this case with the interpretation of proviso (b) to S.60 (1) CPC., but only with the interpretation of clause (d) of S.9 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. It is true that the term "implements of husbandry" occur in both the statutory provisions. But those words occurring in S.9 of the Revenue Recovery Act are not qualified as they are in proviso (b) of S.60 (1) of the CPC. It is obvious from the decisions referred to above that the whole controversy in those cases was concerned with the question whether the properties attached in those cases would be implements of husbandry satisfying the further qualifications contained in that proviso. That situation does not arise here. There can be no doubt that a pump set used by an agriculturist for watering his fields would be an "implement of husbandry." I am also not encumbered with the consideration as in the case of the Nagpur decision that such a property could not have been within the contemplation of the Legislature Revenue when the Recovery Act, 1968 was enacted. 6. For the reasons stated above I hold that the pump set of the petitioner which was attached by the Revenue in this case was not liable for attachment. I, therefore, direct respondents 2 to 4 to return the said property to the petitioner within one month from this date. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.