Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52329
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
MURUKAN – Appellant
Versus
RAVEENDRAN – Respondent
OP(C) 2763/2023
T.MADHU, C.R.SARADAMANI, RENJISH S. MENON, VRINDA T.S., S.JUSTUS, M.N.VEDARAJ(K/624/2006)
Self-employment in fishing does not qualify for exemption under Section 60(1)(c) of the C.P.C. without sufficient evidence of employment status.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 60(1)(c) - Exemption from execution proceedings - The petitioner, a judgment debtor, claimed exemption under Section 60(1)(c) as a labourer, but failed to provide sufficient evidence of his employment status - The court found that self-employment in fishing does not qualify for exemption under the said section. (Paras 3, 5, 6, 7)
(B) Distinction of case law - The court distinguished the facts of Vasanthakumari v. Raichal Banitta, noting that the petitioner did not meet the criteria of a labourer as established in that case. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a labourer, sought exemption from execution proceedings under Section 60(1)(c) of the C.P.C., claiming to be a fisherman. The objection was dismissed by the Sub Judge, leading to this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found the petitioner's claims insufficient to establish his status as a labourer under Section 60(1)(c), noting that self-employment does not qualify for the exemption.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner qualifies as a labourer entitled to exemption under Section 60(1)(c) of the C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that self-employment in fishing does not meet the criteria for exemption under Section 60(1)(c) of the C.P.C., and the petitioner failed to provide adequate evidence of his employment status.
Result: Original Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. counsel argues for exemption (Para 3) |
| 2. opposition to exemption (Para 4) |
| 3. insufficient evidence of labourer status (Para 5) |
| 4. dismissal based on agreement (Para 6) |
| 5. distinction from prior case (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Dated, this the 11th January, 2024 The petitioner herein is the 2nd judgment debtor in E.P.No.29/2015 of the Principal Sub Court, Kochi. He is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, which dismissed his objection to the E.P seeking exemption under Section 60 (1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a labourer and, therefore, his properties are liable to be exempted under Section 60 (1)(c) of the C.P.C., inasmuch as he is occupying the house situated in that building. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Vasanthakumari v. Raichal Banitta [2009 (4) KHC 951] in support of the above contention. Learned counsel also relied upon Ext.P10 pass book and Ext.P11 proceedings to drive home that the petitioner is a fisherman and thus a labourer.
4. Per contra, this application was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder. Learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner had approached this Court on several occasions, so as to deny the 1st respondent from the fruits of the decree. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was given umpteen opportunities to furnish security in the form of Bank Guarantee, which the petitioner has not complied with, despite extension of time. When the property was sought to be proceeded against in the E.P, a claim petition was caused to be filed by the children of the petitioner, contending that the petitioner has only one-third right over the property, which claim petition was allowed. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/decree holder proceeded against the petitioner in respect of his one-third right, at which point of time, the new contention based on Section 60 (1)(c) is propounded and an objection preferred. According to the learned counsel, the said objection was rightly dismissed by the learned Sub Judge, warranting no interference from this Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds little merit in the instant Original Petition. Ext.P7 is the objection preferred by the petitioner, who is the 2nd judgment debtor, against the draft sale proclamation. The petitioner's contention therein in paragraph no.3 is that he is seeking his livelihood by catching fishes in inland waters and at times in sea, as 'labours'. This Court is of the opinion that the above pleading is far from sufficient to establish that the petitioner is a labourer, to fit into the description in Section 60 (1)c) of the C.P.C. If the petitioner is catching fishes in the inland waters by himself, the same amounts to a self employment for the purpose of livelihood. At times, he claims to catch fishes from the sea as a labourer. However, no details as to in whose boat, he is employed and what are the terms of his labour etc., are pleaded. There are no pleadings even to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the petitioner is a labourer entitled to the benefit of (1)(c) of the C.P.C.
6. The learned Sub Judge had relied upon an agreement, to dismiss the petitioner's claim, as per which money is borrowed from the 1st respondent for the purpose of purchasing fishing equipments. The same would again militate against the petitioner's claim that he is only a labourer. This Court has also perused Exts.P10 and P11. Ext.P10 is a pass book, which would indicate that the petitioner is a fisherman and Ext.P11 is a letter issued from the Fishermen Development Welfare Co-operative Society, which only indicates that, in substitution of three persons including the petitioner, three others have been employed in a group by name 'Amrita Vahini'. The real purport of Ext.P11 is not fully clear. Suffic
