SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(Del) 179

High Court Of Delhi
MATU RAM AND SONS - Appellant
Versus
ELGIN MILLS COMPANY LIMITED.ORS - Respondent
First Appeal (OS) 7 of 1973
Decided On : 07/31/1973

Advocates Appeared:
D.N.BHASIN, R.M.LAL

The judgment-debtor has the burden of pleading and proving that the attached property is exempt from attachment and sale under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Headnote:

EXECUTION OF DECREE - ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY - EXEMPTION FROM ATTACHMENT AND SALE - RESIDENTIAL HOUSE - PUNJAB RELIEF OF INDEBTEDNESS ACT - SECTION 60 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - COURT'S DUTY TO SATISFY ITSELF ABOUT EXEMPTION - BURDEN OF PROOF ON JUDGMENT-DEBTOR - CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA - APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES TO EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, judgment-debtors, challenged the order passed by the learned single Judge during the execution of the decree obtained by the respondents against them. The respondents obtained a decree against the appellants in 1963 and filed an application for execution in Delhi in 1964. The appellants' houses were attached in 1965. In 1966, the appellant, Matu Ram, suggested that the decree-holders proceed against other properties first, which the respondents agreed to. However, the decretal amount could not be realized from those properties. The respondents then applied for the sale of the attached houses, which was objected to by the appellants.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the objections raised by the appellants were without substance. The execution application was still pending and the attached houses were never released. The Punjab Amendment to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which exempts a residential house from attachment and sale, does not relieve the judgment-debtor from the burden of pleading and proving that the attached property is exempt. The appellants failed to raise this plea at any stage of the proceedings. The court also held that the plea of constructive res judicata barred the appellants from raising the objection that the attached houses were residential houses.

Issues: 1. Whether the transfer certificate obtained by the respondents had exhausted itself due to the passage of time, resulting in the release of the attached houses? 2. Whether the attached houses could be sold in light of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act and the proviso to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which exempts a residential house from attachment and sale? 3. Whether the executing court had the duty to satisfy itself that the attached property was not a residential house, even without an objection being raised? 4. Whether the appellants were barred from raising the objection that the attached houses were residential houses due to the principles of constructive res judicata?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The transfer certificate had not exhausted itself as the execution application was still pending and the attached houses were never released. 2. The appellants failed to plead and prove that the attached houses were their residential houses, which is a requirement for exemption under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The executing court is not bound to presume that every property sought to be attached is exempt under Section 60. The burden lies on the judgment-debtor to plead and prove the exemption. 4. The appellants were barred from raising the objection that the attached houses were residential houses due to the principles of constructive res judicata, as they had failed to raise this plea in their previous objections.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

S. N. SHANKAR, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal, the judgment-debtors have assailed the order passed by the learned single Judge during execution of the decree obtained by the respondents against them.

( 2 ) ON April 30, 1963 the respondents obtained a decree for Rs. 75,000. 00 and odd against the appellants from the civil court at Kanpur. On the basis of a transfer certificate, on August 18, 1964 the decree-holders filed an application for execution of this decree in the court of the Subordinate Judge First Class, Delhi. On May 5, 1965 the executing court attached houses of the judgment-debtors, bearing Nos. 4763 and 4764 situated at Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, in execution of the decree. On October 14, 1966 the appellant, Matu Ram, stated before the executing court that he had properties other than the attached houses which were specified in the statement filed in court and marked Exhibit J. I and the decreeholder may proceed against those properties first. The respondents agreed to this suggestion without prejudice to their right to proceed against the attached houses if the decretal amount for any reason was not realised from those other properties. It then transpired that in the other properties the appellants had only an insignificant share and the decretal amount could not be realised from them. The respondents, therefore, applied to the court for sale of the two attached houses. The appellants filed objections to this vide 1. A. Nos. 1580 of 1971 and 629 of 1972. They were however, dismissed by order of the executing court dated October 27. 1972, The respondents then applied again to the court to proceed with the sale of the two houses- Notice of this application was issued to the appellants. They again filed objections on January 29, 1973 and contended that the transfer certificate obtained by the respondents from Kanpur courts should be considered by the respondents to have exhausted itself due to passage of time and that the attachment of the two houses which was effected as far back as May 5, 1965 should be deemed to have been released as nothing had been done in respect of these properties over the past so many years. It was also contended that there was no subsisting attachment in respect of these houses and that they could not, therefore, be put to sale. The learned single Judge found that all these objections were without substance and dismissed them by the impugned order and directed the decree-holder to proceed further with the execution and to file the application under Order 21 rule 66 Civil Procedure Code.

( 3 ) SHRI R. M. Lal, appearing for the appellants, has not made any serious attempt to canvass the correctness of the findings in respect of the first two objections and very rightly because, as found by the learned single Judge, the execution application in pursuance of which the houses were attached was still pending and was at no time dismissed. This execution was started on the basis of a valid transfer certificate and it is not the case of the appellants that the houses in question were not attached during this execution. It was because of the statement of the appellant, Matu Ram, himself that the respondents agreed to proceed first against the other properties mentioned in Annexure J. 1 and the execution proceedings, therefore, took time but the attached houses were at no stage released. The objections, therefore, that the transfer certificate should be considered to have exhausted itself and the attached houses should be deemed to have been released were wholly without merit.

( 4 ) IN support of the third objection, Shri R. M. Lal urged that the attached houses could not be sold by reason of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act and the proviso to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure providing for exemption from attachment and sale of a residential house belonging to the judgment-debtor. Confronted with the position that no averment that the attached houses were the residential houses of the app









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top