Madras High Court
Kuppala Subbarayudu And Anr. vs Ammanamanchi Venkatasubbamma on 27 August, 1941
Equivalent citations: (1942)1MLJ87
JUDGMENT Venkataramana Rao, J.
1. In Lakshmayya v. Official Receiver, Kistna (1937) 2 M.L.J. 11 : I.L.R. (1937) Mad. 777 (F.B.) for-the purpose of Section 60 (1) (c), Civil Procedure Code, an agriculturist is defined as follows:
An 'agriculturist' within the meaning of Section 60 (1) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure must be a tiller of the soil really dependent for his living on tilling the soil and unable to maintain himself otherwise.
2. It seems to me having regard to evidence in this case the appellants would be agriculturists within the meaning of Section 60 (1) (c). The evidence in this case is that the appellants have no other Vocation except agriculture. They keep their plough, bullocks and carts in their house. Therefore the house is really used for the purpose of carrying on their calling effectively as agriculturists. This would satisfy even the view taken in Muthuvenhatarama Reddiar v. Official Receiver, South Arcot (1925) 50 M.L.J. 90. : I.L.R. 49 Mad. 227 on which the lower Courts rely
3. I therefore reverse the decision of both the lower Courts and hold that the appellants can claim exemption under Section 60(i)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. I direct each party to bear his own costs throughout.
4. Leave to appeal is refused.