7.A wants to attach the agricultural produce and implement the judgement debtor ‘X’ in an execution petition for recovery of the debt. Is it maintainable?

Facts of the Case

• A secured a civil court decree against X for recovery of debt.
• The decree reached finality, and A filed an execution petition under Order 21 of the CPC.
• A sought to attach:
  • X’s agricultural produce, including standing and stored crops.
  • Farming implements used by X for cultivation.
• X raised objections, citing protections under Section 60(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code.
• X argued that he depends entirely on agriculture for livelihood, and the assets are vital to his survival.

Issues in the Case

• Can the court allow attachment of agricultural produce during execution?
• Do farming tools and implements qualify for protection under the CPC?
• Does X meet the legal standard to be classified as an “agriculturist”?
• How should the court evaluate evidence to determine if the exemption applies?
• Can A prove that X uses these goods for commercial trade instead of livelihood?

Principles Associated with the Case

Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code

• The law outlines attachable and non-attachable properties in execution of decrees.
• Clause (c) of Section 60(1) exempts:
  • Tools of artisans.
  • Implements of husbandry, cattle, and seed grain if the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist.

Understanding “Agriculturist”

• Courts interpret the term based on livelihood, not just land ownership.
• A person qualifies as an agriculturist if:
  • Agriculture provides their primary income.
  • They personally cultivate or directly manage their farmland.
• Mere investment in land or rental activity does not meet this test.

Scope of Exemptions

• Agricultural implements, cattle, seed grain, and unharvested or freshly harvested crops enjoy protection.
• Once the debtor moves crops to market or stores them in excess, they may lose exemption status.

Judicial Precedents

• K.K. Govindankutty Menon v. C.A. Kuruvilla affirmed that essential farming tools are not attachable.
• Mahalingam v. Ratnavelu clarified that only implements used by the agriculturist—not hired tools—enjoy protection.
• In Raghunath Prasad v. Abdul Karim, the court emphasized direct involvement in farming for exemption to apply.

Burden of Proof

• X must prove his agriculturist status by providing:
  • Land revenue receipts.
  • Evidence of cultivation.
  • Testimonies or records showing agricultural operations.
• Without solid evidence, the court can deny the exemption.

Judgement

• The court will assess whether X qualifies as an agriculturist under the CPC.
• If X proves that he earns his livelihood through farming, the court will deny A’s request to attach:
  • Farming tools.
  • Cattle.
  • Seed grain.
  • Crops essential for survival or re-cultivation.
• If X fails to prove this status, the court may permit attachment.

What Will the Court Consider?

• Whether X’s livelihood depends solely on agriculture.
• Whether A proves that the produce or tools serve commercial, not personal, use.
• Whether X diverted his agricultural goods for trade, affecting his exemption claim.

Outcome

• The court can allow A’s execution petition, but only partially.
• A cannot attach exempted assets unless he challenges X’s agriculturist status with evidence.
• The law balances A’s right to recover the debt with X’s right to sustain a livelihood.

---

Mnemonic Table – Remember with “FIBJ”

Code	Key Word	Explanation
F	Farming tools exemption	The law protects tools used directly for agriculture.
I	Income source	The debtor must prove agriculture is the main income.
B	Burden of proof	The debtor needs to present solid proof.
J	Judicial evaluation	The court decides based on facts and legal criteria.