Case: Shrimant Appasaheb Tuljaram Desaiand Others Vs. Bhalchandra Vithalrao Thube

view that they deal only with poor people or are intended to protect against destitution. Thus there is nothing in cl. (b) to indicate that the tools of only poor artisans are to be protected. The same thing can be said of an agriculturist. The fact that his cattle and seed-grain are protected to the extent necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood does not lead to the view that he must be a poor agriculturist. On the contrary, the clause contemplates an agriculturist who has more cattle and seed-grain than he needs for his livelihood. It clearly contemplates a rich and large scale agriculturist. 33. Therefore it seems to me that there is no warrant for imposing any qualification on the plain meaning of the word agriculturist in cls. (b) and (c). In my view, an agriculturist contemplated by the clauses is any person who occupies himself with agriculture. This is the view taken in ILR (1938) Nag 461: (AIR 1938 Nag 366) and with it I agree. A person occupying himself with agriculture would be an agriculturist though he does not cultivate with his own hands and carries on agriculture in a very large scale. He would still be an agriculturist though he has other means of livelihood besides agriculture. 34. I come now to the facts of this case. The question is, is Appasaheb such an agriculturist as I have indicated? The evidence clearly shows that he is. It can be said to have been established beyond doubt and not questioned in the Courts below, that Appasaheb was carrying on agricultural operations under his supervision through labour employed by him and with his own cattle and agricultural implements on fifty to sixty acres of land. The evidence also establishes that Appasahebs income from agriculture came to Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 35,000 per year., It appears that he was in receipt of cash allowances of Rs. 700 to Rs. 800 per year in respect of the watan and Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 5,000 per year from village officers of the watan villages, neither of which was income from agriculture. These facts in my view make Appasaheb an agriculturist for the purpose of cls. (b) and (c) though it may be that he was not dependent for his living upon agriculture and was a large scale farmer who did not till with his own hands. I wish however to state that there is uncontradicted testimony that Appasaheb personally took part in the agricultural operations. 35. Now cl .(c) protects from attachment and sale houses and other buildings with the sites thereof and land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment, belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him. I think it is a fair reading of this clause to say that the houses, buildings and lands must be occupied by the agriculturist for the purpose of agriculture for the object of these clauses is to protect an agriculturist only so far as is necessary for his agricultural operations. If an agriculturist occupied a house, say as a holiday resort, there would be no reason to protect that house from attachment and sale. 36. The question then arises whether Appasaheb occupied the wada for the purposes of his agricultural operations. I think the evidence makes it perfectly clear that he did so. It shows that the larger part of the wada was used for storing crops, keeping agricultural implements, residence of the farm servants and tethering cattle used for agriculture. Appasaheb and his family lived in a part of the wada but that also was clearly occupation for purposes of agriculture, for it is from there that he supervised the agricultural operations. 37. I have therefore come to the conclusion that the wada is saved from attachment and sale in execution by cl. (c) of the proviso to sub-sec.(1) of S. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 38. The other contention of the appellants does seem to me to be sustainable. It is said that the maxim accessio credit principali applies and the wada standing on watan land has acquired the character of watan as an accession to it. It is not in dispute now that the wada was not in existence when the watan was first created but had been built subsequently by one of the watandars. It is also said that the grant of the watan carried full right to ownership in the subject of the grant; that the grantee had the right to make such use of the land granted as any owner of it could have done. So it was said that the wada had been put up rightfully by the watandar and became part of the watan as an accession to it. 39. There is no doubt that the wada was rightfully constructed. It may be that it became on such construction a part of the land on which it stands and assumed the character of immovable property. But I am unable to agree that it thereupon assumed the inalienable character of watan property and was therefore not liable to attachment and sale is execution. I do not think that the maxim accessio credit principali applies in giving the wada put up on watan the character of a watan. Watan is a creation by government grant. It is inalienable under a special Act. The inalienable character attaches under the Act only to the property granted by the government. This peculiar character cannot be extended to other property by the application of the maxim. Therefore it seems to me that the wada is not inalienable though it stands on land which is inalienable as a government grant under a special Act. I would for this reason reject this contention of the appellant. 40. As however in my view, the wada is protected from attachment and sale in execution under cl. (c) to the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I would allow the appeal. 41. Order:

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Having regard to the definition of immoveable property in the Bombay General Clauses Act he was of the opinion that the house certainly formed part of the immoveable property which was held for the performance of the duty appertaining to the hereditary office of the Watan and that the only answer to the question what is the immoveable property which is held for the performance of the duty under S. 4? can be both the land and the house. If the house forms part of the immoveable property it is not possible to sever the two and to say that it is only the land which is Watan property and not the house which is permanently fastened to it. Shah, J. relied upon the decision of Chagla, J. and held that the land on which the Wada in the present case stood, being Watan property, the Wada must also be deemed to have acquired that character. The Division Bench which heard the appeal against the decision of Shah, J. was of the opinion that although a house built on land must be regarded as immoveable property it did not follow that like the land on which it was built the house became Watan property. The fact that a house subsequently built became immoveable property would have no material bearing on the question whether it was Watan property or not. In order that the house may be regarded as Watan property it must satisfy the test laid down by the definition of the word Watam Property in S. 4 of the Act and that if the word held was construed in the way in which the learned Judges of the Division Bench thought it should be, it would be difficult to accept the view that a house subsequently built by a watandar on a part of the Watan land could be said to be held by him for the performance of his duties of a hereditary office. The learned Judges of the Division Bench accordingly were of the opinion that Mr. Justice Shah erred in so holding6. On behalf of the appellants it was argued that the right, title and interest of the grantor had to be looked at first in construing a grant and if it appeared from the terms thereof that it did not contain any reservation or exception then all the rights, title and interest of the grantor which he was capable of granting would pass to the grantee. The grantor in this case was the Government which could have built a construction on the land granted or dug tube wells on it. The grantee, therefore, could also build a house or any other structure on the land. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the position of a watandar was not that of an absolute owner of the land. He held the land on certain conditions. The land was liable to forfeiture if he was guilty of certain acts mentioned in S. 60 and Schedule II of the Act. We will assume, there being nothing to the contrary in the Sanand, that the grantee was not restricted from constructing a building on the land. From that, however, it does not necessarily follow that the building so constructed became Watan property within the meaning of the Act. If the Government could have built a construction on the land it could also have dismantled it and removed the material with which it was made. Similarly, the grantee could do so, there being no restriction in that regard in the terms of the Sanad. It seems to us that on a proper construction of the Sanad there was no impediment in the way of the grantee from dismantling the house which he had built and removing the materials with which it had been constructed and selling the same. Indeed, unless it is held that a house constructed on the land partakes of the character of the land, it is difficult to see how the grantee is prevented from selling or mortgaging it but not the land on which it stood.It seems to us, therefore, that the Wada in the present case although immovable property did not partake of the character of the land on which it was constructed because it was severable from the land and was capable of being dismantled and the materials of which could be removed and sold without violating any of the provisions of the Act. In our opinion, the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court that the Wada was not Watan property appears to be correctIt was urged that as the word agriculturist has not been defined in the Code, the word must be construed according to its ordinary meaning. According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary this word can also mean a farmer. Neither the extent of the land farmed by him nor the amount of income derived by him from cultivating the land was a relevant consideration in construing the word agriculturist. Nor would it be right to restrict the meaning of the word agriculturist to mean that an agriculturist must be a person who himself or by the aid of the members of his family tills the land and not with the aid of employed labour. On behalf of the respondent, however, it was contended that the word agriculturist in cl. (c) of the proviso must bear the same meaning as the word agriculturist in cl. (b) of the proviso. It was necessary, therefore, to construe the provisions of cl. (b) as well in order to understand what the Code intended the word agriculturist to mean in cl. (c). On a proper construction of cl. (b) not only an agriculturist must be the tiller of the land but he must also be a small agriculturist. Clause (b) was not intended to refer to a person who cultivated a large area of land and derived from it a large income. It was pointed out that in the present case the appellant Appasaheb was cultivating a very large area of land with the aid of employed labour and derived an income somewhere between Rs. 30,000 to 35,000 a year. Section 60(1) of the Code states in detail what property of a judgment debtor is liable to attachment and sale in the execution of a decree. It was urged that but for the proviso all the properties of Tuljaramarao other than Watan property were liable to attachment and sale in execution of Laxmanaraos decree. The proviso no doubt exempted from attachment and sale certain properties mentioned therein but cl. (b) of the proviso clearly indicated that the object of the code was to save in the case of a judgment debtor his tools as an artisan and, where he was an agriculturist, his implements of husbandry and such cattle and seed-grains as may, in the opinion of the court, be necessary to earn his livelihood. It did not even exempt his agricultural produce unless there was a notification under S. 61 of the Code specifying by a general or special order how much of the agricultural produce was, in the opinion of the State Government, necessary for the purpose of providing, until the next harvest, for due cultivation and the support of the judgment debtor and his family. It was suggested, therefore, that the Code intended to exempt from attachment and sale, in the case of an agriculturist, only that much which was necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood as such10. In the present case the evidence of the appellants own witness, Balaji, shows that Tuljaramarao had reserved some lands for a home farm about 8 years before his death. The area reserved was about 35 acres and that he maintained about 12 bullocks and 8 servants. He was getting an income of Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,000 a year from these lands. He used to keep his cattle in the Wada where his servants also stayed and his agricultural implements were kept. The produce of the lands was also stored in the Wada. Tuljaramarao used to supervise the agricultural operations and his servants. After his death his son appellant Appasaheb became the owner. Appasaheb increased the acreage of the cultivation of the home farm to about 60 acres. He has 14 bullocks and 10 or 12 servants and the income is Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 35,000 a year. The cattle and the produce are kept in the Wada where he also resides. This witness also stated that the appellant Appasaheb had inams in 4 villages. Furthermore, in 10 or 12 villages he owns lands and he gets about Rs. 35,000 to 40,000 from his lands. The said Appasaheb and his brother sometimes worked personally in the fields. It is clear, from this evidence, that Appasaheb is by no means entirely dependent for his livelihood upon the income from the home farm. Apart from the income of the home farm he has a substantial income from other lands and there is nothing to show that this income derived from his other lands is the result of cultivation by him13. Under cl. (c) houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him are exempted from attachment. The word agriculturist in this clause must carry the same meaning as the word agriculturist in cl. (b) and the house must be occupied by him as such. The object of the exemption in cl. (c) apparently is that an agriculturist should not be left without a roof over his head. In other words, the Legislature intended by cls. (b) and (c) to prevent an agriculturist becoming destitute and homeless. It was, however, argued on behalf of the appellants that there are no restrictive words in cl. (c). So long as it was a house belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him, it was exempted from attachment no matter what other income than agriculture was earned by him. The Wada in question was clearly occupied by the appellants for the purpose of tilling the land of the home farm and for storing the produce thereof, the implements of husbandry and tethering of cattle employed in cultivating the land. It seems to us, on the evidence of the appellants own witness, that they do not themselves till the land of the home farm which is done by a large number of labourers employed by them. Tuljaramarao did not himself cultivate the land. He merely supervised the work of cultivation by the labourers. The witness, however, did state that sometimes Appasaheb and his brother worked personally in the fields. This is a vague statement which does not necessarily mean that they did any act of cultivation themselves. The Wada in question is a big structure where the appellants reside but if they are not agriculturists within the meaning of that word in S. 60, the Wada cannot be exempted from attachment. It seems to us that even if it is not necessary that a person must till the land with his own hands to come within the meaning of the word agriculturist he must at least show that he was really dependent for his living on tilling the soil and was unable to maintain himself otherwise. In the present case it is quite obvious that even if the appellants can be described as agriculturists in the widest sense of that term, they are not agriculturists who are really dependent for their maintenance on tilling the soil and that they are unable to maintain themselves otherwise. The evidence shows that Tuljaramaroa was getting an income of nearly 20,000 to 25,000 rupees from lands cultivated in the home farm and that the appellant Appasaheb by extending the acreage of that farm was receiving an income of Rs. 30,000to Rs. 35,000 In addition he had lands in 10 or 12 other villages and his income from the lands was Rs. 35,000 to Rs. 40,000. Assuming that these figures include the income from the lands of the home farm ,they would show that in addition to that income he had an additional income of at least Rs. 5,000 from lands in villages other than Nandi. Furthermore, the appellant Appasaheb is receiving a cash allowance of Rs. 700 to Rs. 800 per annum and Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 5,000 from the village officers of the four inam villages. In these circumstances, it can hardly be said that the appellant Appasaheb is really dependent for his maintenance by tilling the soil and unable to maintain himself otherwise. From this point of view its seems to us that he cannot be regarded as an agriculturist within the meaning of that word in S. 60 of the Code.14. In our opinion, the decision of the High Court that the Wada in question was not Watan property and that it was not exempted from attachment by virtue of the provisions of S. 60(1) of the Code is correct. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.