the property that is said to be attached is a residential house belonging to him. Claiming that a residential house belonging to an agricultural labourer is exempted from attachment under Section 60 (1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner sought for raising the attachment. The same was resisted by the respondent contending that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of Section 60(1)(c) and he is not an agricultural labourer and he was working in Coimbatore. The trial Court on a consideration of the evidence on record, concluded that the claim of the petitioner that he is an agricultural labourer and as such the house occupied by him is exemption of attachment has not been established. The trial Court also found that the income certificate produced by the petitioner is unreliable inasmuch as the basis of the said certificate issued by the Tahsildar is not explained before the Court. The Executing Court also relied upon the Judgment in PARASUIRE NARASIMA RAO v. NUNE PANDURENGA RAO , reported in 1994 (20 Civil Law Judgment 208 (AP) , to conclude that in order to exempt from attachment under Section 60(1) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it should be shown that the house actually occupied for the purpose of cultivating the land. In the absence of such evidence, the exemption under Section 60(1)(c) of CPC, cannot be availed of by the Judgment debtor. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with this Civil Revision Petition.
