An agriculturist's house is exempt from sale in execution of a decree under Section 60(c), Civil P. C., even if the house was attached before judgment and the decree provided that the house should remain under attachment till the debt is paid off.

BRIJ MOHAN LALL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the judgment-debtors against a decision given in execution proceedings by the learned District Judge of Lucknow upsetting a decision of the learned Munsif havali, Lucknow.

( 2 ) THE respondent brought a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1300 against the appellants. During the pendency of the suit the appellants residential house situate in village Arjunpur and a grove were attached before judgment. On the date of hearing, the suit was compromised and on the basis of that compromise the following judgment was delivered by the Court: "the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs. 1,100 only on admission of the defendants with proportionate costs on uncontested basis. Future interest shall run at 3 per cent. per annum after the expiry of 6 months, if the amount is not paid within 6 months. The house and the grove which have been attached shall continue to be attached till the amount is paid off. " no payment was made by the appellants, The result was that the respondent put the decree into execution and sought the sale of the grove and the house. The appellants filed an objection under section 47, Civil P. C. contending that the house and the grove could not be sold in execution of the decree, This appeal is confined to the house only. The learned Munsif allowed the objection and held that the house was exempt from sale under Section 60 (c), Civil P. C. The learned district Judge differed from the Munsif and held that the house was saleable. Hence this second appeal by the judgment debtors.

( 3 ) TWO points were conceded by the decree-holder before the learned District Judge and they are conceded before me also, namely, that the appellants are agriculturists within the meaning of the term as used in Section 60, Civil P. C. , and that they have got no other house than the one which is under attachment.

( 4 ) THE learned District Judge repelled the appellants contention on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that the house was being used for agricultural purposes. Further he held that since the appellants had agreed that the house should remain under attachment, they should be deemed to have agreed to its sale also.

( 5 ) IT is true that it has been held in some cases that in order to avail of the protection afforded by section 60 (c), Civil P. C. , an agriculturist must prove that he is occupying the house as such. In other words, an agriculturist who cultivates (say) one thousand bighas of land in Ms village and purchases a house in the city of Lucknow in order to enable his sons to receive university education will not be entitled to claim exemption from sale in respect of his Lucknow house notwithstanding the fact that he is an agriculturist and the house may be in his occupation. But the present case is a different one. Here it is, as already stated above, an admitted fact that the appellants have no other house in their occupation. It is also an admitted fact that they are agriculturists. Therefore it is an inevitable conclusion that they are occupying the house for agricultural purposes. No further evidence was needed on the point. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the first ground on which the learned District Judge based his decision carries no weight.

( 6 ) NEXT comes the second ground. In this connection it may be pointed out that Section 60 (c)forbids the attachment and sale "in execution of decree" of an agriculturists house. In the present case the attachment was made before judgment and not in execution of the decree. Therefore the attachment was not invalid. The order of the Court directing the attachment to continue till the debt is paid off also does not contravene any provision of law. When the respondent put his decree into execution he could avail of the attachment made before judgment and by virtue of the provisions of Order 38, Rule 11, Civil P. C. it was not necessary for him to get the house re-attached. But the sale of the house is distinctly for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document