DAVIS Vs. NEW MILLENIUM KURIES P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P4, order passed by the learned Munsiff, Chittoor in E.P. No.2123 of 2008 in O.S.No.2411 of 2006. Respondent sought execution of money decree proceeding against petitioner personally contending that in spite of having means petitioner neglected or refused to pay the decree amount. Representative of respondent gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated about means of petitioner including that petitioner has landed property. Learned Munsiff found means for petitioner and issued warrant of arrest against him. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel contends that finding of learned Munsiff is not correct.

(2.) EVIDENCE of P.W1 and even statement made by learned counsel appearing for petitioner in the court below show that petitioner has landed property. It is taking that and evidence of P.W.1 in to account that executing court found means for petitioner. This Court in Kuppuswmay v. P.G. Menon (1992 [2] KLT 203) stated that though initial burden of proving means (of judgment debtor) is on decree holder he is not required to give evidence regarding all source of income of judgment debtor and that if some indication as to means of judgment debtor is given it is for the latter to rebut it. It is also stated that when judgment debtor owns a house normal presumption is that he is able to pay the amount either by sale of the house, mortgage or by creating encumbrance. Petitioner has not adduced contra evidence. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the order impugned.