Skip to content


Badri Chadan Vs. Raja Indrajit Pertab Bahadur Saheb - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivils
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932All508
AppellantBadri Chadan
RespondentRaja Indrajit Pertab Bahadur Saheb
Excerpt:
- .....time? now in this case ramjas and badri formed a joined hindu family, and after the death of ramjas, badri was apparently the only adult male member of that joint hindu family. the house and bungalow in question are now owned by the joint hindu family and the decree states that there is a liability against the assets of the father which are in the hands of badri. the ownership is with the present joint hindu family, and for this reason* we consider that it is the occupation of badri which we should consider and not the occupation of ramjas, his father. the intention of section 60, in the proviso in question, is that an agriculturist should not be deprived of his means of livelihood by having his house and other buildings taken from him. that result would follow if we allow this.....
Judgment:

Bennet,J.

1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor whose house and shed, otherwise called bungalow, have been attached by a decree-holder with a view to auction sale. The claim of the judgment-debtor is that the house and shed are exempt from attachment and sale, because they are those of an agriculturist under Section 60(1)(c), Civil P.C., which exempts

houses and ether buildings with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him.

2. The decree-holder's case is that the decree was passed against the assets of Ramjas, father of the appellant Badri, in the hands of Badri, and that the evidence shows, as the lower Court has found, that Ramjas was not an agriculturist, but that he was a licensed stamp-vendor and a thekedar. The question therefore before us is whether under a decree such as the present against the assets of a deceased person in the hands, of his successor, which person is to be an agriculturist, whether it is the person, who is deceased and against whose assets the decree has been made, or whether it is the person in whose hands the assets are at the present time? Now in this case Ramjas and Badri formed a joined Hindu family, and after the death of Ramjas, Badri was apparently the only adult male member of that joint Hindu family. The house and bungalow in question are now owned by the joint Hindu family and the decree states that there is a liability against the assets of the father which are in the hands of Badri. The ownership is with the present joint Hindu family, and for this reason* we consider that it is the occupation of Badri which we should consider and not the occupation of Ramjas, his father. The intention of Section 60, in the proviso in question, is that an agriculturist should not be deprived of his means of livelihood by having his house and other buildings taken from him. That result would follow if we allow this execution appeal, as Badri is admittedly an agriculturist.

3. Learned Counsel referred to the ruling of a single Judge of this Court, reported in A.I.B. 1928 All. 211 (2), Girwar Bayal v. Narain Singh which followed a previous ruling reported in Badha Kishen Hohumji v. Balvant Ramji [1883] 7 Bom. 530. These rulings laid down the principle of exemption in question in regard to assets of a deceased debtor. Accordingly we allow this appeal with costs including counsel's fees in this Court on the higher scale.


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