LexSHRIMANT APPASAHEB TULJARAM DESAI AND OTHERS versus BHALCHANDRA VITHALRAO THUBE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 163 SHRIMANT APP ASA HEB TULJ ARAM DESAI AND OTHERS • v. BHALCHANDB.A VITHALRAO TRUBE (JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR and RAG~UBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Watan Property--Building on watan land-Construction subse- quent to creation of watan-Building, whether watan property- Building belonging to an agriculturist-Liability for attachment and sale-" Agriculturist", meaning of-Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, z874 (Bom. 3 of I874), s. 4-Code of Civil Procedure, z908 (Act 5 of z908), s. 6o(z), proviso (b) (c). . In respect of a decree passed against T, who was the owner of certain watan properties, a building standing on watan land comprised in the said properties, was sought to be attached and sold in execution of the decree. The appellant, who was the legal representative of T, claimed that the building was not liable for. attachment and sale because (1) the building, being part of wa.tan property within the meaning of s. 4 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, was not saleable property under sub-s. (1) of s. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and (2) in any case, he was an agriculturist and the building belonging to and occupied by him was protected from attachment and sale by cl. (c) of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 60 of the Code. The facts showed that the building was not in existence when the watan was first created but had been built subsequently by one of the watandars and there was no indication on the record that the building was constructed for' the purpose of providing remuneration for the performance of the duty appertaining to a hereditary office. The evidence also showed that the appellant was not entirely dependent for his livelihood upon the income from the home farm, that he had substantial income from other lands and that there was nothing to show that this income derived from his other lands was the result of cultivation by him. Held, that the building in question was not an accession to the land so as to partake of the character of the land on which it was constructed and did not come within the definition of watan property in s. 4 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874. Held, further (per Jafer Imam and Raghubar Dayal, JJ., Sarkar, J., dissenting), that the word "agriculturist" in cl. (c) of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, must carry the same meaning as the word in cl. (b) and that in order that a person might come within the meaning of the word in those clauses it must be shown that, he was really dependent for his living on tilling the soil and was unable to October a8 • ' ' l 1960 Appasaheb Tuljaratn Desai v. Balchandra Vithalr6lo Thube l>nant ]. 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] maintain himself otherwise, though it was not necessary that he must till the land with his own hands. That on the facts the appellant was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the word in s. 60 of the Code. Case Jaw reviewed. ' Per Sarkar, J.-(1) On the plain meaning of the word "agriculturist" in .els. (b) and (c) of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 6o of the Code an agriculturist is any person who occupies himself with agriculture. There is nothing in cl. (c) to indicate that the agriculturist there mentioned must be one who depends for his living on agriculture. A person occupying himself with agriculture would be an agriculturist though h'e did not culti- vate with his own hands and carried on agriculture in a very large scale. He would still be an agriculturist even if he had other means of livelihood besides agriculture. (2) Under cl. (c) in order that houses and buildings belong- ing to an agriculturist might be protected from attachment and sale they must be occupied by him for the purpose of agriculture. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal ·No. 716 of 1957. Appeal from the ~udgment and decree dated July 29, 1955, of the former Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 50 of 1953 under the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree dated September 3, 1953, of the said High Court in First Appeal No. 547 of 1952. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, T. V. R. Tatachari and M. S. K. Sastri, for the appel- lants. Purshottam Trikamdas, H. R. Gokhale and R. Gopala- krishnan, for the respondent. 1960. October 28. The Judgment of Jafer Imam and Raghubar Dayal, JJ., was delivered by Jafer Imam, J. A. K. Sarkar, J., delivered a separate judg- me
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.