ESTHAPPANOSE Vs. DEVAMATHA KURIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third defendant (third judgment debtor) in O.S.No.552 of 1982, Additional Sub Court, North Paravur, is the revision petitioner. The respondent herein is the decree holder-plaintiff in the suit. A decree was parsed against the revision petitioner and others for recovery of more than Rs.38,000/-. The decree holder prayed for realisation of the decree debt by attachment and sale of the property specified in the schedule. After attachment, notice under O.21 R.66 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued. Then the third judgment debtor filed an objection stating that he is an agriculturist, and claimed exemption under S.60(1)(c) of C.P.C. against attachment and sale of the property specified in the schedule.

(2.) The third judgment debtor was examined as P W.1. The Chairman of the decree holder finance company was examined as DW.l. After evaluating the evidence in the case, the court below, by order dated 6-4-1992, held that the claim made by the third judgment debtor, under S.60(1)(c), is unsustainable. His objections were overruled. It was held that the property specified in the schedule is liable to be sold. The objection raised against the attachment by the revision petitioner was negatived. The third judgment debtor has come up in revision.

(3.) I heard counsel.