9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the property in dispute is not liable to attachment as alleged? 2. Whether the judgment-debtors are estopped from raising these objections? 3. Relief. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the property in dispute is not liable to attachment as alleged? The primary contention of the judgment-debtors was that the property under attachment, a three-storeyed building, was used for residential purposes and thus exempt from attachment under Section 60(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable to Punjab. The decree-holders argued that the building was essentially commercial, situated in a business locality, and used primarily for business purposes. The executing Court initially dismissed the objection, concluding that the ground floor had always been used for business, making the residential use subservient to the commercial use. Upon review, it was noted that the judgment-debtors and their family, totaling thirty members, resided in the house. The ground floor was argued to have been used for selling ice in the open, which the Court found unconvincing given the available accommodation. The Court concluded that the ground floor continued to be used for business purposes and was not converted into a residential house. Issue 2: Whether the judgment-debtors are estopped from raising these objections? The executing Court decided against the decree-holders on this issue as no evidence was led in support of it. Issue 3: Relief The Court examined the legislative intent behind Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which aims to protect a debtor's main residential house from attachment, regardless of the debtor's indebtedness or conduct. The Court emphasized that the law's spirit is to allow debtors to retain their primary residence. The Court noted that the word "residential" includes a dwelling house used for living, even if part of it is used for business purposes. The judgment highlighted that in India, it is common for buildings to have a composite use, with parts used for both residential and commercial purposes. The Court found that the primary use of the building in question was residential, and the presence of a shop on the ground floor did not convert the entire building into a commercial establishment. The Court referred to a similar case where it was held that even if a portion of the house is used as a shop, it does not change the building's residential character. The Court concluded that the house in question, being the only residential house belonging to the judgment-debtors and occupied by them, is not liable to attachment or sale in the execution of the decree. Conclusion The appeals were allowed, and the house in question was deemed not liable to attachment or sale. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs throughout.
|
