Judgment :- 1. Judgment-debtor is the revision petitioner. The short question for consideration is whether items 1 to 7 and 12 in the attachment schedule of movables belonging to him are 'tools of artisans' exempted from attachment under proviso (b) to S.60 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The execution court answered the question in the negative and hence this revision. 2. The disputed items are drilling machine, lathe, G.I. pipes etc. They belong to Srikrishna Industries of which revision petitioner is the proprietor. 3. The scheme of S.60(1) of the Code is to make all saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor and over which he has disposing power, available to his creditor who obtained a decree against him for being attached and sold for realisation of the amount due. What is exempted therefrom are only those of the items specified in the various clauses in the proviso. All lands and houses or other buildings, goods and money are available to the decree holder for being proceeded against unless any of them could be brought within the proviso. Such exemptions were provided only on account of expediency. We are concerned only with proviso (b) which says that 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 subsequent provisions, shall not be liable to attachment and sale. Whether tools of artisans mentioned in proviso (b) stand independent of other items mentioned in the proviso is one contention that has to be gone into. The contention was that unlike an agriculturist the necessity to enable earning of livelihood is not applicable with the tools in the case of an artisan. I do not think that the argument is sound. The argument was that however big or small the trade carried on by the artisan and however massive the tools are, the benefit of exemption is available. I do not think that the argument is sound. The argument was that however big or small the trade carried on by the artisan and however massive the tools are, the benefit of exemption is available. In support of this contention the decisions in Dwarka Prasad v. Meerut Municipality (AIR 1958 Allahabad 561), T.R. Punnavanam v. F. Muthuswami (AIR 1962 Madras 444) and Harjiram v. Ghanshyam Das (AIR 1972 Rajasthan 62) were relied on. 4. The first decision said that there is no reason for holding that clause (b) of the proviso applies only to the case of very small farmers and not to the case of large farmers. The protection was held to be aimed at saving the implements of every farmer so as to enable him to continue earning his livelihood in the same way as he has been earning previously and that there is nothing to indicate that the clause is limited to small farmers. At the same time that decision also said that earning of livelihood with the implement is a condition for the applicability. In that view a tractor was held exempted from attachment. 5. T.R. Punnavanam v. F. Muthuswami (AIR 1962 Madras 444) took the view that the term 'tools' occurring in clause (b) of proviso to S.60(1) includes not only simple instruments but also complicated mechanical instruments used by the artisans for the purpose of their trade. At the same time the term 'artisan' was held to be restricted to a handicrafts-man or artificer who is employed in any of the industrial arts. An employer of labour was found to be not an artisan. 6. Harjiram v. Ghanshyam Das (AIR 1972 Rajasthan 62) took the view that all tools required to carry on a trade as an artisan are covered by clause (b) whether or not they are mechanical and of a complicated nature. Lathe, drilling machine and welding machine all operated even by electricity were all found to be tools of artisans. 7. Necessity to enable earning of livelihood with the tools or implements does not appear to have been held unnecessary by any of these decisions. That means these decisions do not dispute the fact that tools of artisans and implements of husbandry of an agriculturist are treated on the same pattern. 7. Necessity to enable earning of livelihood with the tools or implements does not appear to have been held unnecessary by any of these decisions. That means these decisions do not dispute the fact that tools of artisans and implements of husbandry of an agriculturist are treated on the same pattern. The fact that 'artisan' is one who is trained to manual dexterity or skill in a trade; a handicrafts-man, is also not disputed by these decisions. A mechanic or an artificer is also an artisan. The object of the legislature in exempting from attachment tools of an artisan was obviously to leave him his tools in order to enable him to make a living. It was so held by the Supreme Court in Appasaheb v. Bhalchandra (AIR 1961 SC 589) and that decision was followed in Mathew v. Bank of Cochin (1982 KLT 274). That means tools of artisans and implements of husbandry of agriculturists were treated by the legislature on the same par in clause (b) of the proviso. 8. The provision is not intended to protect big traders, industrialists or large scale agriculturists who amass wealth by their trade or agriculture. It is to avoid destitution and starvation of persons like artisans and agriculturists by deprivation of tools and agricultural implements etc. by attachment in execution of decree that this exemption was provided. The intention was to leave in the hands of the artisan or the agriculturist sufficient means of earning his livelihood and not to afford, plenary protection to big industrialists or traders or agricultural capitalists from their large scale machineries or tools or implements of agriculture from being attached and sold by persons to whom they owe amounts. Persons doing the operations by themselves and eking livelihood out of the proceeds alone are intended to be covered by the protection. The test is whether the judgment-debtor was working by himself with the tools or implements to earn his livelihood and whether he would be deprived of his income and means of livelihood by the attachment and sale. If he is engaging labourers and doing the operations in large scale for profit the benefits are not available. 9. In this case it is true that the trade is a proprietary concern. But there is nothing to show that the revision petitioner is doing the trade himself. If he is engaging labourers and doing the operations in large scale for profit the benefits are not available. 9. In this case it is true that the trade is a proprietary concern. But there is nothing to show that the revision petitioner is doing the trade himself. Whenever a benefit or an exemption is claimed from the general provisions, burden of proof is on the person who so claims. In the absence of proof of exemption the general provisions will have to apply and presumption is against exemption. That is all the more so when the nature of the machineries involved in this case are taken into account. The execution court was therefore correct in finding that the items are not exempted from attachment. There is nothing for interference in revision. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.