MOHINI KAPUR J BHAGWAN RAM Vs. GANESH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition, the point involved is' this, where the house which was attached by decree-holder in execution of the decree could not be attached by virtue of Section 60 (1) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This provision reads as under : "provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely : (c) house and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to (an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant) and occupied by him;" The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that for claiming exemption from attachment and sale, the judgment debtor has to show that he is an agriculturist and the house or building,which has been attached, is occupied by him. It is contended that the learned lower court namely the Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu has accepted that the judgment debtor is an agriculturist and has also accepted that he is living in the house which is the subject matter of the attachment along-with his family. He however, did not exempt the property from attachment or sale on the ground that the judgment debtor had not proved that he was using this house for agricultural purpose. Reliance has been placed on a number of decisions.

(2.) IN Gowranna vs. Basvana Gowd (1) it has been held that so long as the houses and other buildings belong to an agriculturist and are occupied by him, the agriculturist is entitled to the exemption under Section 60 (1 ) (c) and this exemption does not seem to be subject to any other condition. It was further held that it is not correct to say that this provision applies only in cases where it is shown to be necessary for him to occupy the house for the purpose of cultivation of his lands. This court had occasion to examine the provisions of Section 60 (1) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure in Suraj Bhan vs. Krishna Behari (2 ). The original judgment debtor was not an agriculturist but his legal representative were agriculturists. It was held that in order to exempt houses and other buildings from attachment and sale by virtue of Sec. 60 (1) (c) C. P. C. on the ground that they belong to an agriculturist and are occupied by him. The status of the original judgment debtor has to be seen and not of legal representative.