DHARMAN Vs. CHINNATHAMBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner viz. , Dharman being unsuccessful defendant/judgment debtor in C. M. A. No. 9 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai filed against the order in R. E. P. No. 215 of 2001 in O. S. No. 35 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Tiruvannamalai has filed this revision.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:-The respondent in this revision petition viz. , Chinnathambi filed a suit in O. S. No. 35 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai for recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 4431/= against Dharman and obtained decree. He filed R. E. P. No. 215 of 2001 with the prayer for attaching the house belonging to the said Dharman covered by natham Survey No. 56/12c with the extent of 137 sq. metres and for sale of the same through court. The said R. E. P. was contested by the said Dharman by filing counter to the effect that he is 75 years old and he is an agricultural coolie in the village and the house is lying on a poramboke land and the said house is used for storing agricultural implements and thereby such house is exempted from attachment in execution of decree. Further, the similar attempt made by one Venkatakrishna Reddiar for the purpose of making attachment before judgment by filing O. S. No. 319 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai was not accepted on the basis of protest made by the said Dharman and consequently, attachment was raised based upon the fact that the said house is exempted from attachment under section 60 CPC.

(3.) HOWEVER, the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai has chosen to reject the claim of exemption made by the judgment debtor Dharman under section 60 CPC by stating that the judgment debtor Dharman has not proved that he is an agriculturist and the earlier claim of exemption of Dharman under section 60 CPC accepted by the District Munsif in O. S. No. 319 of 1988 as well as by the appellate court in C. M. A. No. 8 of 1989 cannot be binding upon the decree holder Chinnathambi since he was not a party to that O. S. No. 319 of 1988 and C. M. A. No. 8 of 1989 and thereby in all, ordered further proceeding of the execution petition. The judgment debtor Dharman also preferred C. M. A. No. 9 of 2002 and the District Judge, Tiruvannamalai also dismissed the C. M. A. by holding that there cannot be any claim for exemption under section 60 CPC.