BALBIR KAUR AND ORS. Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether the legal representatives of the deceased judgment -debtor are entitled to the protection given to the judgment -debtor under Clause (ccc) of proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that a decree for the recovery of Rs. 8,100 was obtained by Darshan Singh, decree -holder against Jagir Singh, judgment -debtor. After the decree the judgment -debtor died. The decree -holder filed an execution application in which the house belonging to the judgment -debtor was attached. Smt. Balbir Kaur, Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, daughters, and Kanwaljit Singh, son of the deceased filed an application under Section 60 of the Code to the effect that the house sought to be attached was their only residential house which was in their occupation and, therefore, it was not liable to attachment in the execution of the decree. The application was contested by the decree -holder who pleaded that the legal representatives of the deceased were not entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in Clause (ccc) of proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code. The learned executing Court dismissed the objections holding that the legal representatives of the judgment -debtor are not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid section.

(3.) I have given a thoughtful consideration to the argument of the learned Counsel, but regret my inability to accept it. Clause (ccc) of proviso to Section 60(1) provides that one main residential house and other buildings attached to it, belonging to the judgment -debtor other than an agriculturist and occupied by him, shall not be liable to attachment or sale provided the property is not specifically charged with the debt sought to be recovered. Section 2(10) and 2(11) of the Code define the terms 'judgment -debtor' and 'legal' representative'. These are reproduced below: