JUDGMENT A. Banerjee, J. - This is an appeal by two persons Rafiq Ahmad and Anis Ahmad against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bijnor dated 12th May, 1970. The District Judge held, while allowing the appeal, that two thirds share of the disputed house belonging to Rafiq Ahmad and Anis Ahmad was attachable and saleable in execution of the decree in favour of the decree-holder and similarly 5 Biswa land of plot No. 336 and 10 Biswa land of plot No. 337, which were Bhumidhari land, was also liable to attachment and sale in execution. Aggrieved by the above order Rafiq Ahmad and Anis Ahmad have come up in appeal. 2. It appears that Smt. Aisha Khatoon bad filed a suit for recovery of dower-debt from Sheikh Shafiq Ahmad. The suit was decreed. Sheikh Shafiq Ahmad died and the decree in execution is against the sons of Sheikh Shafiq Ahmad, the two appellants and their brother Nafis Ahmad. In the execution proceedings, objections were put forward on behalf of these three brothers, who claimed to be the agriculturists and both the house property and the agricultural land were shown to be exempted on the ground of their being agriculturists. This plea of their was upheld by the Civil Judge in execution. The execution court relied on a statement made by Rafiq Ahmad that three was a previous execution proceedings in which the house was held to be exempt and not liable to attachment. The Execution court held that once the property having been held to be exempt from attachment sale it could not be the subject matter of attachment and sale in a subsequent execution proceedings. The lower appellate court disagreed with the above view on the ground that there was no material on the record to show any such proceedings having taken place. It also held that the two appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Section 60 (1) (c) of the Code. The third brother Nafis Ahmad was, however, held to be an agriculturists. The appeal was thus allowed partly, ?rd share in the house and the two Bhumidhari plots mentioned earlier in this judgment were held to be liable to attachment and sale. 3. The third brother Nafis Ahmad was, however, held to be an agriculturists. The appeal was thus allowed partly, ?rd share in the house and the two Bhumidhari plots mentioned earlier in this judgment were held to be liable to attachment and sale. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the court below erred in not taking into effect the previous order passed in the execution proceedings in the year 1958 and that order would operate as res-judicata. The argument is very attractive indeed but there is no material on the record to show the existence of such an order having been passed in 1958 or any other year. It is trite that before a plea of res-judicata is advanced there must be material to show that there was a previous order. No such order could be pointed out. The lower court record was scanned but no such order could be seen. It appears there was only an oral statement by Rafiq Ahmad. That was not enough to sustain a plea of res-judicata. The lower appellate court has therefore rejected the plea of res-judicata. I see no error in its doing so. In order to succeed on a plea of res-judicata it is essential for a party to file documentary evidence to show that there was a previous judgment or order between the parties or their predecessors in interest in regard to the subject matter in issue. There being none, at least not on the record, the plea of res-judicata could not succeed. I find no merits in this point. 4. The next contention of the learned counsel was that the court below had erroneously held that the appellants were not agriculturists within the ambit of Section 60(1)(c) of the Code. This is a pure question of fact. Whether a person is or is not an agriculturists is basically a question of fact. In the Full Bench case of Chandrawati Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Government, 1961, ALJ 88. Nigam J. speaking for the majority observed that the person must, in order to qualify as an agriculturist, devote the major part of his time, labour attention and skill to cultivation of land. Otherwise agriculture would not be his occupation and he would not be said to be an agriculturist. The court below has applied this test and had found the appellants not agriculturists. Otherwise agriculture would not be his occupation and he would not be said to be an agriculturist. The court below has applied this test and had found the appellants not agriculturists. Where a person is employed as a teacher, away from the land in dispute, the conclusion by the court that he is not an agriculturist within the meaning of the word' 'Agriculturist' as defined in Section 60(1)(c) of the Code, is in accordance with law. I therefore, find no error of law in this finding of the court below. The finding will have to be accepted. It is not open to this court in second appeal to review the evidence or reappraise the evidence. This point also has no merits. No other point was urged. 5. In the result therefore, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs of this appeal.