SAMUVELRAJ ALIAS N S RAJ Vs. Y JEBAMONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order in e. P. No. 12 of 1991 in O. S ,no. 69 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram , in which learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the claim of the revision petitioner that the property attached and brought for sale was not liable for attachment. 2. Short facts are: The respondent herein had filed a suit and got a decree for money. In execution of the decree, he brought the property belonging to the revision petitioner for sale. Revision petitioner objected to the attachment and sale proceedings on the ground that the property sought to be sold is his house and appurtenant land, that he is an agriculturist and hence the property is exempt from attachment under Sec. 60 (. c) of the civil Procedure Code. His objection was resisted by the decree holder/respondent. Learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the objection raised by the revision petitioner, holding that the property attached in this execution petition cannot be exempted from attachment.

(2.) MR. C. Godwin , learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an agriculturist and to prove that he has filed Ex. B-1. The property which was attached is a house and appurtenant land and so it is not liable for attachment. He would add that the court below is wrong in holding otherwise. Per contra, MR. G. Rajagopalan , learned counsel for the respondent would submit that on the petitioners own showing he is a businessman and not an agriculturist and only in cases where the judgment-debtor is solely depending upon agriculture for his sustenance, he can claim the benefits of Sec. 60 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) I do not find any material to interfere with the order of the court below and hence, the civil revision petition will have to be dismissed and shall stand dismissed. No Costs. .