Skip to content


Radhakisan Hakumji Vs. Balvant Ramji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Bom530
AppellantRadhakisan Hakumji
RespondentBalvant Ramji
Excerpt:
the code of civil procedure, section 266, clause (c) - houses and building occupied by agriculturists--representative of on agriculturist--exemption from attachment and sale. - - if, having become owner, he is good faith occupying the house sought to be attached as an agriculturist, it is exempt from attachment......meaningless unless it, is an exception of something otherwise included in the rule. the rule makes houses and buildings subject to attachment in execution: the exception excludes 'the materials of houses and other buildings belonging to, and occupied by, agriculturists.' the expression made use of in the latter clause is plainly meant to exempt a particular class of houses and buildings from attachment,--not merely loose materials of buildings, and those only. in some instances the sites of houses may be held on sufferance, or there may be other means of forcing a tenant to remove or pull down his hut: the clause saves a decree-holder from the temptation he might, be under of putting undue pressure, or getting it put, on the tenant thus situated. if ho cannot attach even the materials,.....
Judgment:

West, J.

1. We are of opinion that the proviso in Clause (c) of Section 266 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be construed by the terms of the positive enactment to which it is annexed. An exception is meaningless unless it, is an exception of something otherwise included in the rule. The rule makes houses and buildings subject to attachment in execution: the exception excludes 'the materials of houses and other buildings belonging to, and occupied by, agriculturists.' The expression made use of in the latter clause is plainly meant to exempt a particular class of houses and buildings from attachment,--not merely loose materials of buildings, and those only. In some instances the sites of houses may be held on sufferance, or there may be other means of forcing a tenant to remove or pull down his hut: the clause saves a decree-holder from the temptation he might, be under of putting undue pressure, or getting it put, on the tenant thus situated. If ho cannot attach even the materials, he has no interest in reducing a house to ruin. While it stands he cannot attach it as a house without attaching the materials of which it is composed.

2. The exemption is of a house or building occupied by an agriculturist, and this, we think, means a house dwelt in by an agriculturist as such, and the farm buildings appended to such dwelling. It does not include other houses, which in one sense may be occupied; what is meant is a physical occupation, by an owner, of his house as a dwelling appropriate or convenient for his calling.

3. As regards the second question, the exemption of dwelling from attachment depends on its answering the description already given at the time when the decree-holder seeks to attach his original judgment-debtor is dead, he proceeds against his representative as liable under the decree, and the representative taking the place of the deceased as to liability under Section 266, takes his place also as to the protection afforded by Clause (c) of the section. If, having become owner, he is good faith occupying the house sought to be attached as an agriculturist, it is exempt from attachment. He is not by this freed from responsibility in other ways; and he will not be allowed, by the artifice of removing from his former dwelling to one that has devolved on him from a deceased judgment-debtor, to defraud a decree-holder of his just claims, and thus unrighteously enrich himself by taking an estate without its burdens.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //