P. A. SHIVE GOWDA v. SYNDICATE BANK — 1976 DIGILAW 168 (KAR)

HONNIAH, A. C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal involves the question whether a motor tractor is an "implement of husbandary" of an agriculturist necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood within the meaning of proviso (b) to S. 60 of the CPC and is therefore exempt from attachment. ( 2 ) THE appeal preferred by the judgment-debtor arises out of and is directed against the order dt. 6-3-1976 in Execution No. 186 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Hassan, negativing this contention. ( 3 ) THE decree-holder, the Syndicate Bank, Hassan, ithe first respondent herein, which held a money decree against the appellant and the second respondent, put the decree in execution in the said Execution 186 of 1974 and sought for the attachment, inter alia, of a motor tractor, Escort 37 bearing reg No. 3891. Show cause notice was served on the judgment-debtors. On 6-3-1973 Advocates appearing for the decree-holder and for the judgment-debtors were present in Court. However, the second judgment-debtor was absent. There is no indication in the order sheet that any objection was raised for the attachment of the tractor. The Court passed an order for attachment and sale of the tractor. It is this order that is questioned in this appeal. ( 4 ) IN Shrimant Appasdheb Tuljaram Desai v. Bhalchandra Vithalrao thube, AIR. 1961 SC. 589. the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the import of the expression "agriculturist" obtaining in proviso (b) to S. 60 of the CPC. The observations therein are instructive :"in the case of a judgment debtor who was an agriculturist, the Legislature intended that his implements of husbandry and such cattle and seedgrain as, in the opinion of the court, were necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood as an agriculturist should be exempted from attachment. Here again, the intention of the Legislature was to leave in the hands of an agriculturist sufficient means whereby he could earn his livelihood as an agriculturist. According to Shorter Oxford dictionary one of the meanings of the word "husbandry" is the business of husbandry, that is to say, a person who tills and cultivates the soil or a farmer. The same dictionary states that one of the meanings of the word "livelihood" is means of living, maintenance. It can also mean income, revenue, stipend. According to Shorter Oxford dictionary one of the meanings of the word "husbandry" is the business of husbandry, that is to say, a person who tills and cultivates the soil or a farmer. The same dictionary states that one of the meanings of the word "livelihood" is means of living, maintenance. It can also mean income, revenue, stipend. In the case to an agriculturist his implements of husbandry must therefore mean implements with which he tills the soil. , These are saved from attachment. So far as his cattle and seed- grain are concerned, only that much is exempted which, in the opinion of the court, would be necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood and by which he could earn his maintenance. "it seems to us that even if it is not necessary that a person must till the land with his own hands to come within the meaning of the word ' agriculturist' he must at least show that he was really dependent for his living on tilling the soil and was unable to maintain himself otherwise. . . . . . . " what emerges, therefore, from the above observations is that before the appellant can claim the benefit of the exemption under proviso (b) to s. 60 of the CPC, he must show that he is an agriculturist, in the sense that though it may not be necessary that he should till the lands with his own hands, he was really depending for his livelihood on tilling the soil and he was unable to maintain himself otherwise. This question, which is a question of fact, has got to be decided on the pleading and evidence. No such plea was taken by the judgment-debtor before the executing Court, much less, any evidence let in the show that the appellant was really depending for his living on tilling the soil and was unable to maintain himself otherwise. On the basis alone of this omission on the part of the appeallant, this appeal should fail. No such plea was taken by the judgment-debtor before the executing Court, much less, any evidence let in the show that the appellant was really depending for his living on tilling the soil and was unable to maintain himself otherwise. On the basis alone of this omission on the part of the appeallant, this appeal should fail. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, apart altogether from the question whether the appellant could be considered to be an agriculturist within the meanning of the said proviso (b) to S. 60, the other question whether a mechanically propelled apparatus like a tractor is or is not an "implement of husbandary of an agriculturist" necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood has received judicial consideration. ( 6 ) IN Shaligram Shriram. Dangra v. Sheopntap Wallabhadas, AIR 1939 Nag 3. it was held that a motor tractor, which is an internal combustion engine and which performs the work of bullocks is not indispensable for agriculture and therefore cannot be regarded as being essential to it and consequently it is not an implement of husbandary. ( 7 ) IN Mathrabai v. Kanhaiyalal Baluram Agarwal, AIR 1959 MP 375 . it was held that implements of husbandary, which are exempted from attachment under s. 60 CPC must be such as are in the opinion of the Court necessary to enable an agriculturist to earn his livelihood as such; that livelihood' connotes the idea of means of living or sustenance and that the implements of 'husbandary which can be exempted must, therefore, be such which are indispensable to an agriculturist and with which he can earn a living to support his life. In that case, the Court was dealing with the question whether an engine and a water pump were implements of husbandary in that sense and the Court negatived the contention that they came within the expression "implements of husbandary". A similar view has been 'taken by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Arumugha goundar v. Marappa Goundar, AIR 1973 Mad 46 . A similar view has been 'taken by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Arumugha goundar v. Marappa Goundar, AIR 1973 Mad 46 . However, a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dwaraka Prasad v. Municipal Board, meerut, AIR 1958 All 561 , has taken the view' that when it is evident that a tractor without which it is not possible to run the farm and when it is further evident that if the farm is not run, a judgment-debtor, an agriculturist, ceased to earn his livelihood as an agriculturist, the judgment-debtor is entitled successfully to seek protection from the attachment of the tractor under S. 60 CPC. The Bench was of the 'view that observations of the Nagpur High Court in Shriram Dangra's cose (2) Were merely obiter dicta, inasmuch as, in that case, it appeared that at the time of the attachment of the motor tractor, it was not being actually used for agriculture. ( 8 ) AFTER a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the principles laid down in Shriram Dangra's case (2), which has been referred to with approval in Mathrabai's case (3), commend themselves to us for acceptance, in preference to the view taken by the Allahabad High court in Dwarka Prasad's case (5), as the view preferred by us accords and is in consonance with the observations of the Supreme Court in Shrimant appusaheb's case (1), which indicate that what are saved to an agriculturist under proviso (b) to S. 60 CPC are only such implements as are ancillary to and concomitants of the actual tilling of the soil and necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood. The tractor is not such an implement as would admit of being considered necessary to enable an agriculturist to earn his livelihood as such. ( 9 ) WE, therefore, hold that the tractor is net exempt from attachment under proviso (b) to S. 60 CPC. 30. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .