G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE decree-holder filed E. P. No. 170 of 1984 in O. S. No. 466 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nandyal, under Order 21 rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for realisation of the decretal amount by selling the E. P. schedule immovable property i. e. residential house The judgment-debtor raised an objection that he is an agricultural labourer and hye has no other property except the residential house and it is not liable to be attached and sold under Section 60 CPC, and the E. P. has to be dismissed.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the decree-holder, three witnesses were examined and similarly three witnesses were examined on behalf of the judgment-debtor. The learned District Munsif considering the evidence found that the judgment- debtor s family is not owing any agricultural lands, that the judgment-debtor is a mason by profession, that he is getting Rs. 25/- per day and he is not entitled to the benefits of Section 60 CPC. The District Munsif disbelieved the evidence of R. Ws. 2 and 3 as there are no merits in their evidence and overruled the objections. Against that orders, the judgment-debtor preferred the present revision.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor is that under Section 60 (c) read with Explanation IV to the section, the decree-holder is not entitled for the attachment and sale of the residential house in execution of decree for the amount that has been claimed by him. Section 60 (1) (c) CPC and Explanation IV to the Section read as follows : "60 Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree: (1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf. Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely: (a) xx xx (b) xx xx (c) houses and other buildings (with 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. (d) to (p) xx xx explanation I to III xx xx explanation IV:for the purposes of this proviso, "wages" includes bonus and "labourer" includes a skilled, unskilled or semiskilled labourer. "

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent contended that the plea that has been set up by the judgment-debtor that he is only an agricultural labourer has been disbelieved by the lower Court and so he is not entitled to fall back upon the version that has been set up by the decree-holder about the judgment-debtor living on masonry. It is true no new case can made out. But when two parties have adduced evidence with regard to divergent versions and when one version has been rejected and the other version has been accepted, it is for the appellate Court to consider whether the finding that has been given by the lower Court is just and correct. Initially, the burden is on the judgment-debtor to show that he is entitled to the benefits of Section 60. But when once he has discharged his burden and the decree-holder adduces evidence that the judgment-debtor is not an agricultural labourer, but is only a mason, we have no other alternative than to accept the finding given by the lower Court. The contention that no opportunity was given to show whether he was actually doing masonry work or contract work or daily work, and he is earning something has no substance. It is suffice to s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document