Decided on June 09,1954

RURA RAM Appellant


Harnam Singh, J. - (1.) In Execution Second Appeal No. 289 of 1953 it is said that the provisions of Section 60 (1) (c), Civil P. C. being inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India are void. Sections 60 (1) (c) and 60 (1) (ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable to the State of Punjab read: "60 (1) ** * * * Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely- (a) **** (b) **** (c) 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 not proved by the decree-holder to have been let out on rent or lent to persons other than his father, mother, wife, son, daughter, daughter-in-law, brother, sister or other dependants or left vacant for a period, of a year or more. (cc)**** (ccc) one main residential house and other buildings attached to it (with the material and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to a judgment-debtor other than an agriculturist and occupied by him: Provided that the protection afforded by this clause shall not extend to any property specifically charged with the debt sought to be recovered."
(2.) In these proceedings it is said that inasmuch as agriculturists and non- agriculturists are dealt with differently in the matter of the protection given to them the requirement of the equal protection of the laws is not satisfied.
(3.) In -- 'Ameerunnlsa v. Mahbooob Begum'. AIR 1953 SC 91 (A), Mukherjea J. delivering the judgment of the Court said: "It is well settled that a legislature which has to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations must, of necessity, have the power of making special laws to attain particular objects; and for that purpose it must have large powers of selection or classification of persons and things upon which such laws are to operate. Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not 'per se' amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. To attract the operation of the clause, it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation is unreasonable or arbitrary, that it does not rest on any rational basis having regard to the object which the legislature has in view.";

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.