JUDGMENT : The question came up for consideration is whether a garden land with a residential building therein having an extent of 8.35 cents can be brought under the purview of an “agricultural land” for the purpose of exemption under Section 60 C.P.C.. Such a contention was raised when the said property was proceeded against in an execution of a decree for money. Thereon, the second judgment-debtor claimed that this property is an agricultural land and will stand exempted under Section 60 C.P.C.. But it was disputed and denied by the decree holder. The abovesaid claim was rejected by the trial court upholding the objection raised by the decree holder, against which the second judgment-debtor came up under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The very attempt on the part of the judgment-debtor to bring up the property within the sweep of clause (c) of Section 60(1) C.P.C. appears to be untenable. The expression “agricultural land” is conspicuously absent in clause (c) of Section 60(1) C.P.C. Instead, what is incorporated is “an agriculturist or labourer or a domestic servant” in reference to “houses and other buildings with the materials and the sites thereof and the land appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment” belonging to and occupied by such agriculturist. Necessarily, what actually amounts to the expression “agriculturist” requires detailed consideration. 3. The term “agriculturist” was elaborately considered by the Apex Court in Shrimant Appasaheb Tuljaram Desai and Others v. Bhalchandra Vithalrao Thube, ( AIR 1961 SC 589 ). An “Agriculturist” means a person, who earns his livelihood wholly or principally by cultivating land either personally or through servants. Hence, the test is whether he is wholly or principally depending on the income from the agricultural operation for his livelihood. Mere existence of an income from an agricultural operation or agriculture land may not by itself bring a person within the sweep of “Agriculturist” for the purpose of exemption under Section 60 C.P.C. But at the same time, it is not at all necessary that he should do the agricultural work personally. What governs the area so as to bring up a person within the sweep of an “Agriculturist” is the relation between the income from agricultural operation and his livelihood and if it is satisfied that he is wholly or principally depending on the income from cultivation, he would stand within the sweep of the said expression. What governs the area so as to bring up a person within the sweep of an “Agriculturist” is the relation between the income from agricultural operation and his livelihood and if it is satisfied that he is wholly or principally depending on the income from cultivation, he would stand within the sweep of the said expression. Hence, it is a condition precedent to claim the benefit of exemption under clause (c) of Section 60(1) C.P.C.. Mere existence of an agricultural land or that he is doing cultivation may not by itself bring him within the sweep of the said section, unless he is wholly or principally depending on the income derived from such cultivation. 4. If a person is not an “Agriculturist” within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 60(1) C.P.C. as enumerated above, he cannot claim exemption simply on the reason that he is keeping some agriculture equipments in his house or keeping some cattle or cowshed intended for the purpose of cultivation. Even substantial income from agricultural operation may not be sufficient, unless the person depends on it either principally or wholly for his livelihood. Necessarily, it is a matter to be established by the person who claims the benefit under that provision. 5. In the instant case, no such case is either advanced or proved. What is involved is only 8.35 cents of garden land with a building therein, wherein the judgment-debtors are residing. Hence, the present petition is unwarranted and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The O.P.(C) will stand dismissed in limine.