The exemption from attachment under Section 60 (ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure extends only to the judgment-debtor and not to his legal representatives.

AVADH BEHARIROHATGI

( 1 ) THE decree-holders have obtained a decree against the judgment-debtors for Rs. 9,975 and costs of the suit. The total sum due under the decree is Rs. 11,725. 75. This decree was passed on January 9, 1973, by the Subordinate Judge. Then the decree-holders made an application for execution of the decree. Subsequently the execution case was transferred to this court.

( 2 ) MANOHAR Lal Jain executed a promissory note on which a suit was brought against him under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. During the pendency of the suit Manohar Lal died on January 24, 1971. His legal representatives five sons and a daughter were brought on the record of the suit in place of the defendant Manohar Lal. The suit continued. In the end a decree was passed against the legal representatives of Manohar Lal.

( 3 ) MANOHAR Lal was the owner of house No. 4738 situated at 23, Ansari Road Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The decree-holders have attached that house in execution of the decree. The legal represen- tatives of Manohar Lal made an application on April 12, 1974 that the house be released from attachment as it was exempt under the provisions of Section 60 (ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 4 ) THIS application has been made by three legal representatives, viz. , Sumer Chand Jain, Harish Chand Jain and Prem Chand Jain, sons of Manohar Lal, deceased. These sons of Manohar Lal say that the house in Darya Ganj "is the only residential house of the objectors/judgment-debtors which they are ccupying and in which they are residing along with their families. As such the said house is exempt from attachment under s. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. " This is the main ground on which they claim that the house is not liable to attachment.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that Manohar Lal was the father of the present objectors. Nor is it in question that Manohar Lal died during the pendency of the suit and his sons and daughter were brought on the record of the suit as legal representatives. It is also not in doubt that the pronote was executed by Manohar Lal and he took the loan on which the suit was brought. Now it is not denied that the house which has been attached by the decree-holders was the property of Manohar Lal. The question is whether his sons are entitled to claim the benefit of exemption under section 60 (ccc ).

( 6 ) CLAUSE (ccc) of section 60 says that the following particulars shall not be liable to attachment or sale, namely :

"one main residential house and other buildings attached to it (with the material and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to a judgment-debtor other than an agriculturist and occupied by him; Provided that the protection afforded by this clause shall not extend to any property specifically charged with the debt sought to be recovered. "

( 7 ) THIS clause was introduced in the Punjab by Act XII of 1940. Subsequently the clause was amended in 1942 and 1960.

( 8 ) NOW the question is : Does the protection given to the judgment-debtor also extend to his legal representatives ? The clause exempts one main residential house belonging to the judgment-debtor and occupied by him. Who was the judgment-debtor ? That is the question for decision in this case. The sons of Manohar Lal say that they are the judgment-debtors as the decree was passed against them and, therefore, they are entitled to the protection afforded by clause (ccc ).

( 9 ) IN my opinion the sons of Manohar Lal, the present objectors, are not entitled to the benefit of clause (ccc ). They are not the judgment-debtors. They are the legal representatives of the judgment debtor. The judgment-debtor was Manohar Lal. He took the loan. He executed the pronote. The suit was brought against him. In the course of the suit he died and his legal representatives were brought on the record of the. suit under Order XXII rule 4. Code of Civil Procedure, Obviously they were broug

Click Here to Read the rest of this document