AMMU Vs. SASTHA TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A judgment debtor who is none other than the mother of deceased Vasu, the second respondent before the executing court and who has been impleaded as the legal representative of deceased Vasu, is the revision petitioner. The decree holder took steps in execution and got attached three items of properties belonging to deceased Vasu. Objections were raised by the revision petitioner mainly contending that she is entitled to the benefit under Act 17 of 1977, for short the Act. A commission was issued by the court below for assessing the income from the properties owned by the revision petitioner. Accordingly the commissioner appointed in the case inspected the properties belonging to the petitioner and submitted his report Ex. C1. It is also said that another commission was also issued by the court below at the instance of the decree holder, who submitted his report Ex. C2.

(2.) On behalf of the decree holder Pw. 1, the decree holder himself, was examined; while on behalf of the revision petitioner her son Rw. 1 was examined and Exts. C1 and C2 were marked as court exhibits.

(3.) The court below after due consideration of the evidence, particularly Exts. C1 and C2 reports, came to the conclusion that the annual income of the petitioner is more than Rs. 3000/- and therefore she is not entitled to the benefits under Act 17 of 1977.