Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO, VENKATESWARA RAO
K.Santha Kumari - Appellant
Versus
Suseela Devi - Respondent
Decided On : 12-04-68
AGRICULTURAL DEBTORS RELIEF ACT - SECTION 60(1)(C) - APPLICABILITY TO MORTGAGE DECREES - WAIVER OF PROTECTION - RES JUDICATA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an agriculturist, obtained a mortgage decree against the respondent and applied for the sale of the hypothecated house in execution of the decree. The respondent filed an application seeking dismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the debt became extinguished under Section 16 of the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and that her house is not liable for sale in view of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 60(1) Civil P. C. The court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 60 Civil P. C. has no application to mortgage decrees, that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the exemption as she should be deemed to have waived the "privilege" when she created a mortgage over the house and that she is in any view precluded from pleading Section 60(1)(c). Civil P. C. , as a bar to the proposed sale of her house by constructive res judicata as she failed to raise the objection either in the suit or in the earlier execution petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which exempts houses belonging to agriculturists from attachment and sale in execution of decrees, is applicable to mortgage decrees as well. However, the court also held that the protection conferred by Section 60(1)(c) can be waived by the agriculturist, and that the petitioner had waived the protection by voluntarily executing a mortgage of her house in favor of the respondent. The court further held that the petitioner was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata from claiming exemption under Section 60(1)(c) as she had failed to raise the objection in the earlier execution petition.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to mortgage decrees? 2. Whether the protection conferred by Section 60(1)(c) can be waived by the agriculturist? 3. Whether the petitioner is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata from claiming exemption under Section 60(1)(c)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to mortgage decrees as well as money decrees. The proviso to Section 60(1) is intended to apply to all decrees and not merely to decrees in which prior attachment is necessary. The words 'attachment or sale' occurring in the proviso were deliberately used by the Legislature with a view to make it clear that the exemptions specified in it are applicable not only to cases in which attachment should proceed the sale but also to those where there is mere attachment without sale or sale without attachment. 2. The protection conferred by Section 60(1)(c) can be waived by the agriculturist. The prohibition contained in Section 60(1)(c) is not based on public policy and is intended to afford protection to an agriculturist from being deprived of a house to live in. When the agriculturist voluntarily executes a mortgage of his house, he waives the protection conferred by Section 60(1)(c). 3. The petitioner is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata from claiming exemption under Section 60(1)(c) as she had failed to raise the objection in the earlier execution petition. The petitioner had an opportunity to raise the objection in the earlier execution petition, but she failed to do so. She is therefore barred from raising the objection in the present execution petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THE only question that falls to be considered in this civil revision petition is as to whether a house belonging to an agriculturist is liable to be sold in execution of a decree obtained on the basis of a mortgage of that house, made by the agriculturist.
( 2 ) THE respondent obtained a mortgage decree against the petitioner in O. S. 4/61 on the file of the Munsif Kollapur, and thereafter applied to that Court, in E. P. 28/61 for sale of the hypothecate consisting of a house. The petitioner thereupon made a part-payment to the respondent and was permitted by the Court, with the consent of the latter, to pay the balance in instalments. As she committed default in payment, the decree-holder once again applied for sale of the house in E. P. 14/64. On receipt of the notice of sale, the petitioner filed E. A. 17/64, out of which this revision petition arose, for dismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the debt covered by the decree became extinguished under Sec. 16 of the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and that her house is, in any view not liable for sale in view of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 60 (1) Civil P. C. as she is an agriculturist and has all along been using that house both for her residence as well as storage of agricultural produce. This petition was opposed by the respondent who filed counter contending that the petitioner is not an agriculturist, that it is not correct to say that the debt became extinguished under Section 16 of the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, that she is likewise not entitled to invoke to her aid Sec. 60 (1) (c) Civil P. C. as it is inapplicable to mortgage decrees, that she should in any view be deemed to have waived the benefit of the protection, if any, afforded by Section 60 (1) (c) by voluntarily creating a mortgage over the house and that she is also barred from questioning the executability of the decree by sale of the hypothecate as she did not raise his objection either in the suit or in the earlier E. P. 28/61. The learned Munsif found that the petitioner is an agriculturist but negativated her contention that the debt became extinguished under Sec. 16 of the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. On the other question arising in the case, held that Sec. 60 Civil P. C. has no application to mortgage decrees, that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the exemption as she should be deemed to have waived the "privilege" when she created a mortgage over the house and that she is in any view precluded from pleading Section 60 (1) (c ). Civil P. C. , as a bar to the proposed sale of her house by constructive res judicata as she failed to raise the objection either in the suit or in the earlier execution petition 28/61. He accordingly dismissed the petition with costs. Aggrieved by this decision, the judgment-debtor has preferred this revision petition.
( 3 ) OUR learned brother, Venkatesam, J. , before whom this petition came up for hearing in the first instance, referred it to the Bench having regard to the fact that "there is no decision of a single Judge or a Bench of this Court on this point though there are conflicting decisions of other High Courts" and that"the judgment of a Bench of the Hyderabad High Court reported in Sivarama Reddy (Minor) v. Sayed Ismail, 38 Deccan LR 252, supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. "
( 4 ) IT is contended for the petitioner that the decision of the Court below to the effect that she is not entitled to the protection of Sec. 60 (1) (c) of the Code, notwithstanding that she is found to be an agriculturist is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. While conceding that the petitioner is an agriculturist within the meaning of Sec. 60 (1) (c), it is urged for the respondent that the reasons assigned by the Court below in support of its conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to claim exemption from sale in respect of her house are perfectly so
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.