AMAR SINGH Vs. PURAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the District Judge, Gurdaspur, dated May 31, 1972, who accepted the appeal of the decree-holder against the judgment of the Executing Court and dismissed the objections of the judgment-debtor.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to this appeal are that a decree for Rs. 7050/- was passed in favour of the plaintiff-decree-holder against the defendant-judgment-debtor. The decree-holder started execution proceedings for recovery of the decretal amount and got attached house of the judgment-debtor. He (judgment-debtor) filed objections under Sections 47 and 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and stated that the house was not liable to attachment and sale as it was his sole residential house. The decree-holder contested the objections and denied the allegations of the judgment-debtor. Inter alia, it was pleaded that the judgment-debtor had undertaken at the time of decree in the suit, of the plaintiff-decree-holder for specific performance, that he would not transfer the house or encumber it in any manner till the decretal amount was paid to him (decree-holder). It is further stated by the decree-holder that the judgment-debtor was estopped from raising the plea that the house could not be attached and sold in execution of the aforesaid decree. The trial Court held that though some portion of the house was on lease with Kundan Lal D.H.W. 1 but as the remaining part of the building was in occupation of the judgment-debtor, therefore, the whole of the house was not liable to attachment and sale. It further held that the judgment-debtor was not estopped from his conduct to raise objections. The decree-holder filed an appeal against the judgment of the Executing Court before the District Judge, Gurdaspur, who reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that the house was liable to attachment and sale. The judgment-debtor having felt aggrieved from the judgment of the District Judge, Gurdaspur, has come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the house in dispute is the sole residential house of the appellant and it is not liable to attachment and sale under clause (ccc) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code. He also submits that in case it is held that the decretal amount was a charge on the house, in that case, the undertaking given by the judgment-debtor is hit by sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the Code. Sub-section (1), sub-clause (ccc) of proviso to sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the Code, are as follows :