Skip to content


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

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in138Ind.Cas.685
AppellantBadri Chandan
RespondentRaja Indrajit Pertab Bahadur Saheb
Cases ReferredRadha Kishen Hukumji v. Balvant Ramji
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 60(1)(c) - decree against assets of deceased person in the hands of agriculturist successor--deceased not agriculturist--exemption of house from attachment. - .....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 iu the hands of badri. the owernship 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 wa allow this.....
Judgment:

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 Procedure Code, which exempts 'Houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to an agricultarist and occupied by him.' The decree-holder's case is that the decree was passed agaiust 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 thakeder 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 ia 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 iu the hands of Badri. The owernship 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 wa allow this execution appeal, as Badri is admittedly an agriculturist

2. Learned Counsel referred to the ruling of a single Judge of this Court, reported as Girwar Dayal v. Narain Singh : AIR1928All211 which followed a previous ruling reported as Radha Kishen Hukumji v. Balvant Ramji 7 B. 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 //