Introduction

The Constitution of India emanates its discourse from broader principles of justice, liberty,
equality and fraternity which lay the premise for enshrining social, economic and political
normalisation and democratic ethos in societal contours. The ‘social justice’ concept that was
embodied in the constitution consists of diverse principles that are essential for the
development of each citizen. In the generic sense, ‘social justice’ is a very part of justice.
Social justice, in the India context, has been said to be a device to help the poor, Tribals,
Dalits, weak and deprived and to help them elevate to the standard of equality and a just and
dignified life. Social justice is not a singular or a simple idea but essentially a complex part of
societal change to provide relief to the poor, etc. from their handicaps and make their life
liveable to the extent that the society at large benefits from it.1

Social justice is seen as a revolutionary concept that provides dynamism to the rules of law.
Social justice is to be accorded to everyone.2 It is contended that the term justice under social
justice refers to justice for the weaker section of the society and the deprived class to bring
about an egalitarian order where opportunities for seeking justice are afforded equally to such
people also.3 "Legal justice" is to be merely seen as an application of the more fundamental
notion of "social justice" to legal rules and decisions.4

Procedural law affects social justice in multiple ways. Substantive law is the same for
everyone and everyone is equal in front of the law in its substantive sense. However, in
procedural law, various special provisions are made to further social justice. The reason
behind the same is that there are a lot of hurdles that pre-exist for socially and financially
backward people which expose them to the adversities that are created by these procedural
laws which also complicate procedures for a lot of reliefs.

Proviso to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure and social justice

Section 605 provides for those properties that are liable to attachment and sale in execution of
a decree and what properties have exemption from being attached and sold. It does not apply
to those decrees where attachment is not necessary for execution. 6 It also does not apply to
proceedings initiated under The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951.7 Sub section 1
specifies the properties that can be attached and sold in execution of a decree whereas the

1
Consumer Education & Research v. Union Of India & Others 1995 SCC (3) 42.
2
“Natural and Social Justice” by R.G.Chaturvadi, 2nd ed. (1975 Law book Company Allahabad). p. 469.
3
Punjab National bank v. Gulam Dastagir AIR 1978 SC 481.
4
Law and Philosophy, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1984), pp. 329-354.
5
The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 60.
6
Laxmi v state bank of Travancore AIR 1988 Ker 311.
7
Rahima Beevi v Kerela Financial Corpn. AIR 1987 Ker 126.
proviso clarifies that the properties covered by various clauses thereof (a to p) shall not be
liable for attachment or sale.8 This proviso is what makes the section important for
furtherance of social justice. This paper, however, is limited to analysing proviso (b) and (c)
and the explanations thereto.

Object and purpose of the Section

The object behind the section primarily was to inform the decree holder about the properties
that are liable for attachment and which would facilitate the execution of that decree. The
purpose of the proviso, however, is different. Unless the judgement debtor is rescued by the
proviso, all lands, houses, buildings, etc. would be liable to be attached leaving the judgement
debtor a destitute. The legislation foresaw this and decided that it would not be appropriate to
leave the section at that and hence included the proviso to save people in need from such
instances.9 These exemptions that the proviso provides for are based on reasonable grounds
and equitable considerations.10 The general policy behind the exemption clearly indicates the
concern on the part of the legislature towards the low income individuals of the country and
to ensure that such people are not rendered completely homeless and have at least a minimum
income or property necessary for his basic dignified existence. 11 Protection under Section 60
for agriculturist is based on public policy and is not intended to confer any personal
benefits.12 This paper focuses on proviso (b) and (c) and the explanations thereto, specifically
on who an agriculturist is and how the courts have dealt with the same along with which of
his properties can be attached.

Who is an ‘agriculturist’

The word ‘agriculturist’ was not defined in the CPC prior to the 1976 Amendment. However,
it is important to look at the court’s views on the same prior to the amendment to analyse how
courts furthered the principles of social justice in defining the same. On a proper construction
of proviso (b) an agriculturist must not only be the tiller of the land but also 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.13 It must be borne in mind while considering the
meaning to be given to the word ‘agriculturist’ that clauses (b) and (c) are exceptions to the
general rule laid down in Sub-section (1) of Section 60. As this word occurs in the exception
to the general rule and not in the general Clause itself it should be interpreted strictly
according to the general rule.14 The argument that the word "agriculturist" must be given a
wide meaning becomes untenable once we keep this into consideration. Additionally,
“agriculturist” occurs at multiple places in the text of Section 60 and the whole section must
be read together in consonance for the interpretation of the word which supports the narrow

8
State of Punjab v. Dina Nath 1984 SCR (1) 844.
9
Appasahab v. Balchandra AIR 1961 SC 589.
10
Official Receiver v. Chepur China AIR 1960 AP 353.
11
Ude Bhan v. Kapoor Chand AIR 1967 Punj 53.
12
Mulla’s Code of Civil Procedure, 2nd ed. (2011) p 959.
13
Appasahab v. Balchandra AIR 1961 SC 589.
14
Smt. Chandrawati Tewari And Ors. v. Uttar Pradesh Government AIR 1961 All 183.
view. Moreover, the object of these 2 clauses was that the agriculturist should not be left
roofless and should not become a destitute15 and the narrow interpretation supports this.

However, the narrow construction of the word agriculturist becomes problematic when
viewed from the social justice perspective. Suppose, a person owns a large farm and devotes
all his time and attention in engaging in agriculture in that land. From the mere fact that the
area is large and that he uses machines like tractors and other modernised techniques, it is
impossible or highly difficult for him to himself till any part of the land or physically gather
the produce of the land. A narrow construction would lead to this individual not being
classified as an “agriculturist”. The extent of the land farmed by the individual or the amount
of income that he derives from cultivating that land should not be a relevant consideration in
construing the word “agriculturist”. If such a fact is taken into consideration it discourages
farmers from expansion and would lead to a dearth in people joining the sector. Therefore,
restricting the meaning of the word “agriculturist” to imply that an agriculturist is a person
who either himself or by the aid of his family tills the land and does not engage in the aid of
labour for the same would also not be right.16

The broad construction of the same invites its own problems. For example if a person owns a
large area of land but resides in the city and gets his employed labour to carry on agriculture
in that land and lives off completely on the income generated from that land he would also be
classified as an “agriculturist” and would be able to avail the benefits provided in section 60.
This again becomes problematic as this, instead of furthering social justice, hampers it. The
very fact that will give equal benefits to both socially deprived class and the socio-
economically rich class takes away from the very basis of social justice. This is where the
role of the judiciary comes in and therefore, it is very important that the courts strike a
balance between taking a narrow or a broad view and adjudge each case on its own facts and
merits and bot lay down a blanket rule for who an “agriculturist” is. 17 The courts in various
cases have taken different views but have always tried to uphold this basic principle of social
justice.18

Currently, there are 2 tests that can be applied to understand who an agriculturist is. 1) Does
he devote the major part of his time, labour and attention and skill to the cultivation of land?
2) What is the prepondering source of his income? 19 However, the courts still have a wide
discretion in applying the definition given by the statute’s amendment and the explanations
thereto.20 Moreover, an agriculturist does not cease to be an agriculturist if there occurs an
year of scarcity where growing sufficient food for his own necessities also becomes difficult.
If in the normal years, the main source of living is agriculture, then he will be regarded as an
agriculturist.21 This safeguards the “agriculturist” from bad times.

15
Mulla’s Code of Civil Procedure, 2nd ed. (2011) p 944.
16
Appasahab v. Balchandra AIR 1961 SC 589.
17
Smt. Chandrawati Tewari And Ors. v. Uttar Pradesh Government AIR 1961 All 183.
18
Pukhraj v Prabha AIR 1970 Raj 108; Gowrana v Basavana Gowd AIR 1975 Kant 84.
19
Prabhu Dayal v Ramnaik Lal AIR 1979 All 193; Mulla’s Code of Civil Procedure, 2nd ed. (2011) p 943.
20
State bank of India v kashinath bhikaji wage 1988 Mah LR 749.
21
Mulla’s Code of Civil Procedure, 2nd ed. (2011) p 944; Pukhraj v Prabha AIR 1970 Raj 108.
Attachment of motor vehicles/tractors under section 60

The essence of the exemption given in proviso (b) is that the property should be an
“implement” necessary for the judgement debtor to earn his living. In common terms, the
word ‘livelihood’ denotes the idea of making a bare living and would thus include only that
which is necessary for the individual to meet his basic needs. 22 Prima facie, it excludes the
idea of making a big business or a wealthy living. Taking livelihood to mean this, only the
very basic plough and other necessary tools will be covered under this and would be exempt
from attachment and sale under execution of a decree.23 What are exempted under the proviso
are only those properties which are concomitant with the actual tilling of the soil necessary
for the agriculturist to earn his living. This would, further, exclude mechanical items such as
tractors etc. which though more beneficial to an agriculturist are not indispensable for his
‘livelihood’. A motor tractor is not such a property which can be held to be absolutely
necessary to enable the agriculturist to earn his livelihood and should therefore not be granted
the exemption.24 The same was upheld by the Maharashtra High Court.25

However, in my opinion, in today’s age and time, a motor tractor forms as much a part of
necessary tools as ploughing manual tools. The above judgements26 may have been correct at
the time they were delivered but do not further the cause of social justice in the present
scenario and defile the object and purpose of the exemption which was to inter alia, further
social justice. The scientific development in any field should not be ignored and must be
taken into consideration while giving a decision. The constitution is the supreme law of the
state and all statutes must be interpreted in light of the principles laid down in the
Constitution. The Constitution imposes a duty on the State to endeavour to organise
agricultural and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines. 27 The judiciary is included
in this and should therefore view such cases in light of the Constitution. Therefore merely
saying that such mechanised property like tractors are outside the scope of section 60 by
following the dictionary meaning of the words used in the proviso tends to be untenable when
viewed in consonance with the constitution.

Whether a tractor is an agricultural “implement” or not will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each particular case. Laying down of a general rule in this regard would
defeat the purpose for which the exemptions were drafted. It has to be looked into in the
context, facts and circumstance prior to attachment. If it can be established that immediately
during the period before the attachment, tractor was being used for essential agricultural
purposes, then it may be said to be an “implement” of the agriculturist whose livelihood
primarily depends on the income earned from engaging in agriculture. The same has been
upheld by the Karnataka High Court.28 Thus, in the present time period, a broader view

22
P. Bachubhai v lalita AIR 1972 Guj 31; Appasahab v Balchandra AIR 1961 SC 589.
23
The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXI.
24
Shiv Gowda v. Syndicate Bank (1976) Kant LJ.
25
State Bank of India, Igatpuri Branch v. Kashinath Bhikaji Wge 1988 Mah LR 7849.
26
Id.
27
The Constitution of India, Article 48.
28
Narayana Rao vs State Bank Of India, Humnabad 1999 (2) KarLJ 411.
should be taken when interpreting the word “implement” in proviso (b). “Modernize or
Perish" is the command of social justice. 29 A narrow view of the proviso defeats the
legislative intent behind the proviso since any kind of scientific development would then be
discouraged and agriculture would remain a backward field. For a country where most of the
poor population relies on agriculture for their living, a narrow view would hamper the growth
and would de-stabilise the social justice that this provision seeks to achieve and further.

Conclusion

“While the rich use monetary catalysts to manage things, the poor suffer the ‘slow motion'
skills of court justice”.30 The principles of social justice are manifold in nature. Things like
‘equity’, diversity etc. are a part of the blanket of ‘social justice’. What proviso (b) and (c)
aim at achieving is that India’s most relied on sector by the financially poor and middle class
be more secure from the complexities of civil procedural law.

However, various complexities arise in determining the scope of the application of the
proviso, one of which has been addressed in this paper. The poor and indigent rely on the
mercy of the judiciary once the legislation has done its job. The judges, while deciding each
case, should keep these principles in mind which formed the basis of these exemptions being
granted. It has been noted by various scholars that a lot of agriculturists are conned by people
to take loans at high rates of interests which they are not able to return and they end up in the
‘debt trap’ where they borrow further to return previous debts. There exists a fine line
between determining who an “agriculturist” is and the same is very important in furthering
the principle of equity and social justice to ensure that such individuals of our country are
able to survive with dignity.

29
“Our Courts on Trial”, by Justice Krishna Iyer, p7.
30
Id.