1. This revision is filed by the Judgment Debtor No. 1 questioning the orders of the lower Court in O.E.P No. 4 of 1992 in O.S No. 195 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srikalahasthi, by which the lower Court held that item No. 1 of the E.P schedule was liable for sale for realising the decree amount.
2. The respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, had filed the suit and obtained decree for maintenance against the petitioner who is her husband. She subsequently filed O.E.P No. 4 of 1992 seeking sale of the item Nos. 1 and 2 of the E.P schedule over which charge was created in the decree. The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor, contested the said execution petition contending that item No. 2 is a Darakasthu land” and he does not have any title to the same and as such it is not liable for sale. Regarding item No. 1, he contested the execution petition contending that he is an agriculturist and he is keeping his agricultural implements in item No. 1 house and the said house is therefore exempted under Section 60 C.P.C The lower Court agreed with the contention of the judgment debtor relating to item No. 2 but negatived his, contention relating to item No. 1 holding that he is not proved to be an agriculturist as defined in Section 60 C.P.C and item No. 1 is therefore liable to be sold for realisation of the decree amount. Execution Petition was accordingly allowed relating to item No. 1 and the decree-holder was permitted to proceed with the sale of the said property.
3. The present revision petition is filed questioning such orders of the lower Court relating to item No. 1 of the E.P schedule property.
4. Notice was issued to the respondent but she remained absent. Hence the Counsel for the petitioner is heard.
5. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner who is the judgment debtor No. 1 is an agriculturist and item No. 1 is not liable for sale?
6. The respondent who is the decree holder examined herself as P.W 1 and she also let in the evidence of P.W 2 who is a resident of the same village. The evidence on behalf of the decree holder shows that the Judgment debtor is running hotel business and earning sufficient income from such business and that he cannot therefore be considered as an agriculturist as defined in Section 60 C.P.C The lower Court accepted the evidence produced on behalf of the decree holder and came to the conclusion that the judgment debtor cannot be considered as an agriculturist and as such exemption granted under Section 60 C.P.C relating to item No. 1 house is not available to him. The Judgment debtor is examined as R.W.I
7. Explanation V to Section 60 C.P.C shows that for the purpose of the proviso to Section 60 C.P.C the expression “agriculturist” means a person who cultivates land personally and who depends for his livelihood mainly on the income from agricultural land whether as owner, tenant, partner or agricultural labourer. As already stated above, on the basis of the oral evidence adduced on behalf of both sides and after discussing such evidence in detail and after giving valid and convincing reasons, the lower Court came to the conclusion that the judgment debtor is running meals hotel and earning sufficient income and as such he cannot be considered as an “agriculturist” as defined in Section 60 C.P.C There are no valid and convincing reasons to differ from such conclusion arrived at by the lower Court on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides. Such opinion arrived at by the lower Court cannot be interfered with in the present revision by reappreciation of the evidence. Therefore inasmuch as the petitioner who is the Judgment debtor is not proved to be an agriculturist as defined in explanation ‘V’ to Section 60 C.P.C the exemption granted in Clause-C of Section 60(1) C.P.C for house belonging to agriculturist is not available to him. Therefore there are no merits in the present revision which is liable to be dismissed.
8. The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. No. costs.