Back
ANIL KSHETARPAL
Rulia Singh – Appellant
Versus
Munsha Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's mortgage agreement and execution challenges. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's thorough analysis of case specifics. (Para 2 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. arguments on property exemption under cpc. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. clarification of section 60(1)(ccc) application. (Para 9) |
| 5. precedents on exemptions under cpc analyzed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. both petitions dismissed with no merit. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
(Anil Kshetarpal, J.) :
This judgment shall dispose of two connected revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In CR-6329-2019, the petitioner assails the correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court on 17.12.2018 while dismissing the petitioner's objection petition. The aforesaid order has been affirmed in the appeal by the First Appellate Court. In CR-6376-2019, the challenge is to the correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court on 04.10.2018 whereby the objection filed by the petitioner on the ground that the matter is pending in the High Court, has been dismissed.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. The petitioner (Sh.Rulia
Exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of CPC does not apply to residential property specifically charged under a decree for specific performance.
The exemption for a residential house from attachment does not apply if the property is specifically charged with the debt sought to be recovered.
The exemption of a residential house from attachment under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC is valid if no evidence is presented to prove ownership of additional properties by the judgment-debtor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief of possession can be granted without being specifically claimed in a suit for specific performance, as per Section 22(2) of the Spe....
The subsequent sale of the property did not affect the rights of the decree-holder, and the executing court must consider the rights of subsequent purchasers under Section 19(b) of the 1963 Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
