SANTU AND ANR. Vs. SOHAN LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of execution proceedings. The facts briefly stated are as follows:

(2.) ON 29 -9 -1996 one Nathu Lal obtained a money decree for Rs. 1,000 and costs against the four sons of Mangal deceased, realisable out of the assets of Mangal in the hands of his sons and also against Biru, one of the four sons, personally. On 9 -11 -1997 Nathu Lal sued cut the execution of the decree and had a house attached on 2 -3 -1998. On 6 -12 -2000 Santu and Bantu, two of Mangal's sons, put in objections to the attachment and sale of the house. They alleged that they being agriculturists and the house being used by them for residential purposes the same could not be attached and sold in execution of money decree against their father. They further alleged that the house being their only residential house it was exempt from attachment and sale. The following two issues were framed by the execution Court:

(3.) THE petition is directed against the appellate order of the District Judge. It has been referred to the Full Bench on the ground that it involves important and difficult questions. I may, however, point out that it being only a petition in revision the score of it is limited. The District Judge has held that the objectors were not able to prove that they were agriculturists, and accordingly they could not avail of the exemption mentioned in Clause (c) of Section 60, Code of Civil Procedure. This is a finding based on evidence and no question of jurisdiction being involved it cannot be disturbed in revision. The Petitioner's counsel argued that the onus of issue No. 1 was wrongly placed upon his clients and this had materially prejudiced them. There is nothing on record to show that at the time the Court framed the issues and placed the onus of the first issue upon the objectors, any objection was taken on their behalf. I am, therefore of opinion that it is not open to them to raise this point at this stage. Moreover, since both parties produced all the evidence that was available to them and the entire evidence was taken into consideration by the District Judge the question of onus becomes immaterial and even if we be inclined to think that the onus was wrongly placed, the finding of the District Judge cannot be set aside merely for this reason. Apart from this I am not convinced that there was any error on the part of the trial Sub -Judge in framing issue No. 1, in the form in which he did or in requiring the objectors to prove that they were agriculturists. It was conceded by counsel for both sides that at the time of the decree as well as at the time the house in dispute was attached, exemption from attachment of the house on the ground that they were agriculturists could only be claimed under Clause (c) of Section 60 which lays down that 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 agriculturist and occupied by him are not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree. The Petitioner's counsel argued that since the section was later on amended by the Patiala Relief of Indebtedness Act (v [5] of 1999) and the scope of exemption from attachment of a house belonging to and occupied by an agriculturist was made wider, and the act had come into force before the objections were filed, the objectors were entitled to take advantage of the amendment. That the Act was in force at the time the Petitioners put in their objections cannot be denied, because it came into force on 1 -4 -2000 and the objection petition, as mentioned above, was instituted on 6 -12 -2000. Section 34 of the Act laid down that Section 60, Code of Civil Procedure would stand amended as below: