Report No. 54
Section 60(1) and agricultural labourers
1E.41. The exemption conferred on agriculturists by the section [e.g. section 60(1)(c)], should in our view, be extended to agricultural labourer (i.e. landless labourers) also.
Recommendation to insert Explanation
1E.42. Accordingly, we recommend that the following Explanation1 should be inserted below section 60(1), proviso:
"Explanation-For the purposes of this section, the word 'agriculturist' shall include every person who depends for his livelihood mainly on income from agricultural land, whether as owner, tenant, partner or agricultural labourer."
1. Suitable number will have to be given to the Explanation.
Section 60(1) and waiver of the exemption
1E.43. Waiver of the right conferred by section 60 should, in our view, be made inoperative. On this point, we are departing from the approach adopted in the earlier Report.1
1. 27th Report.
Recommendation to insert new sub-section (1A)
1E.44. We, therefore, recommend the insertion of the following sub-section, as sub-section (1A) in section 60:-
"(1A) Notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force, an agreement by which a person agrees to waive the benefit of any exemption under this section shall be void".
Section 63-Property attached in execution of decrees of several Courts
1E.45. Section 63 is as follows:-
"63. (1) Where property not in the custody of any Court is under attachment in execution of decrees of more Courts than one, the Court which shall receive or realise such property and shall determine any claim thereto and any objection to the attachment thereof shall be the Court of highest grade, or, where there is no difference in grade between such Courts, the Court under whose decree the property was first attached.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to invalidate any proceeding taken by a Court executing one of such decrees."
1E.46. In the earlier Report,1 the Commission had to consider the question as to the effect of section 63(2), (which provides that nothing in the section shall be deemed to invalidate any "proceeding taken by a court" executing one of the several decrees referred to in the section), on an order allowing a set-off to a decree-holder auction-purchaser. Does the expression "proceeding taken by a Court" exclude the amount so allowed to be set off from rateable distribution? The Commission noted that most High Court2-3-4-5 had answered the question in the negative, though the Calcutta High Court6 had taken a contrary view. The Commission took the view that the expression "proceeding" does not include such order, but did not consider a clarification to be necessary.
1. 27th Report, note on section 63.
2. Megraj v. Corporation of Madras, AIR 1936 Mad 797 (798).
3. Thannull v. Krishnaswamy, AIR 1935 Mad 988 (994).
4. Ram Chandra v. Digamber, ILR 1960 Born 8: AIR 1960 Bom 230 (FB).
5. Vishnu Ram v. Bank of Bihar, AIR 1946 All 291.
6. Ahinath v. Nepal Chandra, AIR 1937 Cal 55 (56)
1E.47. We agree with the interpretation placed by the previous Commission; but are of the view that a clarification is desirable, in order to settle the controversy. We recommend that the following Explanation should be .added below section 63(2)-
"Explanation-In sub-section (2) the expression 'proceeding' taken by a Court does not include an order allowing, to a decree-holder who has purchased property at sale held in execution of a decree set off for the purchase price payable by him."