THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 2999 of 2009 DATE: 30-04-2011 Between: Maganti Sitarama Swamy .. Petitioner And Yadlapati Sambasivarao and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 2999 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 30.09.2008 in E.P.No.3 of 2007 in O.S.No.401 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Eluru dismissing the application for attachment of house property belonging to the judgment-debtor on the ground that it is exempt from attachment under Section 60 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “CPC”). A money decree was obtained and as the amount was not paid, attachment of house property was sought for and the 1st judgment-debtor claimed exemption stating that he is an agriculturist and the property is exempt from attachment. The lower Court accepted the contention taking into consideration the fact that the description of the judgment-debtor No.1 is shown as agriculturist and the occupation is cultivation and, therefore, the house property is not liable for attachment. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that in order to get the benefit, it is necessary that the judgment-debtor should prove the house, used by the agriculturist for the purpose of cultivating the land, is exempted from attachment. He relied on a decision reported in AMBIAH v. MALLANNA[1]. Further more, in the decision reported in PARUCHURU NARASIMHA RAO v. NUNE PANDU RANGA RAO[2], it was held that immunity from attachment with regard to residential house is not available to a debtor unless he establishes the connection between the agricultural operations carried on by him and the house sought to be attached. Even otherwise, any relief claimed for exemption of attachment can be waived by agriculture or otherwise. Therefore, merely because the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist, the exemption does not automatically unoccupy to his benefit, evidence has to be adduced. Therefore, in view of the above decisions, the order of the lower Court cannot be sustained and the order of the lower Court is set aside and both parties shall adduce evidence if interested and then the lower Court shall decide the matter keeping in view of the legal principles. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the lower Court. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 30-04-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 2999 of 2009 DATE: 30-04-2011 MR [1] AIR 1964 AP 514 [2] AIR 1994 AP 197