V P ARORA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is true that originally, O.P Arora could claim the benefit, but, he could not do so as he died. It is equally true that on the proposition of law raised on behalf of the decree holder, Shanti Devi could not claim protection under section 60(ccc). However, at the relevant time, V P. Arora, Judgment-debtor happened to own the house and occupied the same as the main residential house.

(2.) Assuming that V.P. Arora also died and the house passes on to a person who is not a judgment-debtor and if the principle of law as enunciated on behalf of the decreeholder is correct to the effect that a legal representative cannot take benefit of section 60(ccc), this house would again become available to the Bank/decree-holder for getting the same attached and sold in execution of the decree. But so far as V P. Arora is a judgment-debtor and possesses the same as the main residential house, the house is clearly protected by the provisions of 60(ccc).

(3.) The underlying object of section 60(ccc) is not to displace a judgment- debtor from the main residential house in execution of a money decree. It hardly matters whether he owned the house when decree was passed or he comes to own the house at a time when it is sought to be attached or sold. That is why the law framers used the word 'or` between attachment and sale, The last relevant time would be the date of sale and if on the date of sale a residential house is owned by the judgment-debtor, it would not be sold and will have to be released from attachment.