TEJMAL Vs. VARJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision application by the decree-holder against an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi, holding that the attached property was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of his decree in view of proviso (c) to sec. 60 (1) C. P. C.

(2.) THE facts of the case are these. One Uma took a loan from Tejmal for the recovery of which Tejmal brought a suit against him. During the pendency of the suit Uma died and his legal representatives namely his widow Smt. Varju, respondent No. 1 and his minor daughter Kumari Jatan, respondent No. 2, were impleaded as defendants and a decree was passed against them. In consequence of the decree a house belonging to Uma which was in the possession of respondents No. 1 and 2 was attached. THEy filed an objection that the house was exempt from attachment under sec. 60 G. P. G. on the ground that Smt. Varju was dependent for her maintenance on her wages as an agricultural labourer and she is supporting her minor daughter Kumari Jatan out of the same source of livelihood. THE decree-holder disputed that the respondents were agriculturists within the meaning of sec. 60 G. P. G. THE court framed an issue whether the attached house was not liable to sale in execution of the decree. Both the parties led evidence. THE executing court recorded a finding that Uma who was the original debtor was an agriculturist and as such the house was exempt from attachment and sale in execution of the decree. It is not disputed that this decision is erroneous because Uma was not the judgment-debtor. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were the judgment-debtors and the court has to find out whether or not they were agriculturists.