VEERACHARI Vs. THIMMAMMA ALIAS THIMMAKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claim the benefit of Sec.68(1), proviso (c) of the Code of Procedure. Under that proviso, the houses and other buildings (with the materials and sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for enjoyment) belonging to an agriculturist or a labourer oradomestie servant and occupied him shall not be liable to attachment or sale. THEre are three conditions. First is that, judgment-debtor should be an agriculturist or a labourer. Secondly, the house and buildings etc., must be necessary for his enjoyment. Thirdly, the house must be occupied the judgment-debtor. In this case, even assuming that the first and second requirements satisfied, the third requirement has not been proved. THEre is contradictory evidence witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners. While R.W.3 gives evidence that the is in the occupation of R.W.1 by name Venkataswami who is not a judgment-debtor, states that he is in occupation of the house and he claims that he has been paying house-tax. No document has been produced by the petitioners herein to prove that they occupying the house.

(2.) IN the circumstances, the executing Court is right in holding that the provisions of (1), proviso (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply. Hence, the revision fails dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.