ANAND RAO Vs. PANDURANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question in this second appeal is whether the house of the judgment-debtors is or is not liable to attachment having regard to the provisions contained in Section 60(1)(c), Civil P.C.

(2.) TWO points are urged on behalf of the appellant (decree-holder) in this connexion. The first of these is that the house has recently fallen down, or is at least in a dilapidated state, and that, therefore, the site on which the house stood cannot be said to be protected. The District Judge has, however, in his appellate order, pointed out that the father of the judgment-debtors only died a year or so before the date of the judgment and that he had actually cultivated the land in mauza Sirata. I am wholly unable to accept the contention that merely because the house requires reconstruction or rebuilding and a short period of a year or so has elapsed since the old house disappeared or became dilapidated, the decree-holder is entitled to come in and attach the site with the dilapidated house standing thereon. It seems to me that there must be clear proof, before the appellant's contention in this connexion can succeed that the new owners have no intention of re-building and continuing to make use of the site for the same, purpose as before. That is certainly not made out in the present case, and the first contention offered on behalf of the appellant, therefore, fails.

(3.) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed without notice to the respondents.