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

2009 Supreme(Ker) 1101

High Court of Kerala
S.S. Satheesachandran, J.
Rajappan - Appellant
Versus
Shaju - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 154 of 2009
Decided On : 08-07-2009

The burden is on the decree holder to establish the judgment debtor's means to discharge the decree debt, and the judgment debtor must show his incapacity and lack of means to discharge the debt to the satisfaction of the court.

Headnote:

Burden of Proof - Means to Discharge Decree Debt - The burden is on the decree holder to show that the judgment debtor is possessed of means to discharge the decree debt. Once the decree holder leads such evidence, the burden shifts to the judgment debtor to show his incapacity and lack of means to discharge the decree debt. The exemption from arrest on a warrant for default in discharging the decree debt is in favor of the judgment debtor, and he must show his incapacity to the satisfaction of the court.

Fact of the Case:

The revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakuda in E.P.No.1591/05 in O.S.No.714/04 where the plea of no means canvassed by the judgment debtor was accepted. The decree holder filed the revision impeaching the propriety and correctness of that order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the learned Munsiff was under a misconception regarding the burden of proof on the decree holder to establish the judgment debtor's means to discharge the decree debt. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Munsiff to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders based on the evidence presented.

Issues: The issues revolved around the burden of proof regarding the judgment debtor's means to discharge the decree debt and the acceptance of the plea of no means raised by the judgment debtor.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden is on the decree holder to show that the judgment debtor is possessed of means to discharge the decree debt. Once the decree holder leads such evidence, the burden shifts to the judgment debtor to show his incapacity and lack of means to discharge the decree debt.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the learned Munsiff was directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders based on the evidence presented.

Judgement Key Points

No, the mere filing of an affidavit and examination of the decree holder (DH) is not necessarily sufficient to establish that the judgment debtor possesses the means to discharge the decree debt. The decree holder bears the initial burden of leading evidence to demonstrate the judgment debtor's means, which may require more than just the decree holder's own testimony or affidavit—such as witness testimony or other indicative circumstances. Only after such evidence is presented does the burden shift to the judgment debtor to prove incapacity or lack of means to the court's satisfaction. If the evidence is inadequate, the court may not sustain a finding against the judgment debtor. [judgement_subject][15000413440001][15000413440001]


ORDER

S.S. SatheesaChandran, J.

1. The revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakuda in E.P.No.1591/05 in O.S.No.714/04 where under the plea of no means canvassed by the judgment debtor was accepted. The decree holder has filed the revision impeaching the propriety and correctness of that order.

2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Previously the execution court after enquiry has passed an order that the judgment debtor is possessed of sufficient means and a warrant was ordered against him for realising the decree debt. The judgment debtor challenged that order by way of a revision in CRP.774/07 before this court. The revision was allowed and the case remitted for fresh consideration directing for affording opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their respective case .Pursuant to such remission the decree holder examined one witness stated to be the employer of the judgment debtor. It is submitted that in his examination in chief, he gave a version that the judgment debtor was employed under him as a worker in dealing with gold ornaments, but in the cross examination, he gave a diferent version that the judgment debtor was with him only for 2-3 months to learn the making of ornaments from gold. No evidence other than what was let in earlier was tendered by the judgment debtor after remission. The learned Munsiff after appreciating the evidence let in the enquiry concluded that the decree holder has not established that the judgment debtor is possessed of sufficient means to discharge the decree debt. After going through the impugned order, I find the learned Munsiff is under a misconception that the decree holder is bound to prove that the judgment debtor is possessed of some landed properties or financial capacity by way of his employment or other means to discharge the decree debt. The burden cast on the decree holder is only to show that the judgment debtor is possessed of means to discharge the decree debt and he cannot be expected to prove the means of the judgment debtor with documentary evidence. Once the decree holder leads such evidence the burden shifts to the judgment debtor to show that he is not possessed of means and thus incapable of discharging the decree debt. The exemption provided by the statute from arrest on a warrant for the default in discharging the decree debt is carved in favour of the judgment debtor and he who claims that benefit must show to the satisfaction of the court his incapacity and lack of means to discharge the decree debt. So the question to be considered is whether on the evidence tendered in the case the learned Munsiff was justified in entering a finding sustaining that plea of no means raised by the judgment debtor .Whatever be the reason for retraction of PW3, who is stated to be the employer of the judgment debtor, prevaricating from his version in examination of chief during his cross examination, his evidence would indicate that the judgment debtor worked under him, probably only as an apprentice for about 2-3 months to learn the making of gold ornaments. His continuous attending for such work is a circumstance from which it could be gathered that he is capable of doing that work and has reasonable ability to generate income for his livelihood. Further more, despite an opportunity given by this court to lead further evidence in the enquiry he was satisfied with whatever evidence already in the case before the remission. So on the materials placed the acceptance of the plea of no means canvased by the judgment debtor by the learned Munsiff cannot be sustained. The impugned order is set aside and the learned Munsiff is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders on the materials tendered, in the light of the observations made above. The revision is allowed.

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