JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner is the judgment-debtor in E.P.60/2015 in O.S.115/1999 on the file of Sub-Court, Perumbavoor. This O.P has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.7.2016 of the Sub Judge ordering the sale of the property described in the draft sale proclamation.

2. According to the petitioner, a specific contention that the petitioner is an agriculturist entitled for benefit under Sec.60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'the Code') has been specifically raised in the objection but it has not been considered properly by the Execution Court. It is also his contention that the property would fetch value of Rs.5 Lakhs per cent, but without any basis the Court accepted the valuation shown in the sale proclamation filed by the decree holder. A part of the property would have been sufficient to satisfy the decree but the entire property was proclaimed to be sold. The procedures prescribed under Rule 330 of the Civil Rules of Practice also not complied since no encumbrance certificate has been produced by the respondent/decree holder. There is a two storied concrete building in the scheduled property and the value of it has not been considered while accepting the value shown in the proclamation. In short, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order ordering proclamation and sale of the property has to be set aside.

3.The learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder, on the other hand, would contend that all the objections raised by the petitioner has been answered by the learned Sub Judge and no evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove any of the contentions. It is also his contention that in spite of passing a decree for realization of money, no payment has been made and from 2016 onwards the matter is pending without making any payment and hence according to him, there is no merit in the original petition.

4. Heard both sides. Lower court records in E.P.60/2015 was called for and both sides were heard.

5.Based on the above, the following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the benefit claimed under Sec.60(c) of the Code has not been properly considered.

(ii) Whether value of the property shown in the proclamation is very low

(iii) Whether only part of property would have been sufficient to satisfy the decree debt.

6.Point No.(i) – The petitioner/judgment debtor has got a specific contention that he is an agriculturist and an agricultural labourer. Hence the property cannot be sold in execution of the decree as per Sec.60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter be stated as Code). It is stated in the impugned order that the petitioner has sought exemption under Sec.60(c) of the Code since the land is an agricultural land. But from the valuation certificate produced by the decree holder the land sought to be sold is a residential plot and it is further found that though the property is found attached already, the attachment order was not challenged. It appears that the reasoning of the learned Sub Judge is without properly understanding the scope of Sec.60(c) of the Code. It is apposite in this context to extract Sec.60(c) which reads as follows :

Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree

Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely :-

(a).............

(b).............

(c) houses and other buildings (with the 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.

7. Sec.60(c) exempts the houses and other buildings and land immediately appurtenant there to and are necessary for the enjoyment of an agriculturist. The term 'agriculturist' is not defined in the Code.

8.This Court had occasion to consider this aspect in Mathew v. Bank of Cochin Ltd and Others (1982 KLT 274 = 1982 KHC 69). In that while considering Sec.60(c) of the Code, it has been held that ag