Govindan Goundar vs Govindan

P. Venugopal, J.—The judgment-debtor has filed this civil revision petition and the decree-holder is the respondent. The decree-holder filed

an execution petition under Order 21, Rules 37,38 , Civil procedure Code, for arresting and detaining the petitioner herein for realising the decree

amount. The petitioner pleaded that he is a small farmer entitled to the benefits of Act XXXI'' of 1976. The Executing Court negatived the claim

holding that though the petitioner does not own more than one unit of land, he is still not entitled to the benefits of Act XXXI of 1976 as his

principal mans of livelihood was from incomes derived from a mango grove, which cannot be construed as ""agricultural land"". The Civil revision

petition is directed against that order of the Executing Court.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that ""agriculture"" includes horticulture and income derived from mango grove is also income

derived from agricultural land and in view of the specific finding of the executing Court that the petitioner does not own more than one unit of land,

the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Act XXXI of 1976.

Section 4(c) of Act XXXI of 1976 provides that a 11 suits and other proceedings (including a appeals, revisions attachments or execution

proceedings) pending at the commencement of this Act against any debtor for the recovery of any such debt (including interest, if any) shall abate.

Debtor"" is defined to include (1) a landless agricultural labourer or (2) a rural artisan; or (3) a small farmer. ""Small farmer has been defined to

mean"" a person whose principal means of livelihood is income derived from agricultural land and who holds, whether as owner, tenant, or

mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity and partly in another

(i) not more than two units of land, in a case where such person is a member of any of the Schedule Tribes; and

(ii) not more than one unit of land, in any other case.

Agriculture"" is defined to include (1) horticulture (2) the raising of crops (including plantation crops grass or garden produce; (3) dairy farming; (4)

poultry farming; (5) breeding of livestock; (6) grazing"". In the instant case there is a clear finding by the Executing Court that the petitioner does not

own more than one unit of land. The only other question that survives for consideration is whether his principal means of livelihood is income

derived from agricultural land. The finding of the Executing Court is that the petitioner owns a mango grove having 27 trees and the income derived

therefrom is not less than Rs. 2,400. ""Agriculture"" has been defined to include horticulture and the raising of plantation crops. The Act defines

plantation crops to mean cardamom, cinchona, coffee, rubber or tea. It is therefore, obvious that the term ""agriculture"" has been used in its widest

connotation and it is so comprehensive as to take within its ambit raising of plantation crops like cardamom, coffee, rubber or tea. Raising of a

mango grove certainly falls within the purview of horticulture and the income derived from the mango grove is nothing but income derived from

agricultural land. As ""agriculture"" includes horticulture, and as raising of mango grove is horticulture, the income derived therefrom is only income

from agricultural land. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the benefits of Act XXXI of 1976 and the execution proceeding taken against the

petitioner stand abated u/s 4(c) of the Act.

In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.