M. Subraya Hegde vs M.G. Prabhu Shikar

Sadanandaswamy, J.—Appellant is the judgment-debtor and respondent is the decree-holder. The respondent obtained a money decree for payment of Rs. 2,017.89 directing the judgment-debtor to pay the decree amount in three equal instalments payable within 30th April, 1971, 30th April, 1972 and 30th April, 1973. The said decree was passed on 12-2-1971 by consent of parties. Thereafter, the judgment-debtor committed default in payment of the first instalment within the stipulated time. The decree-holder filed the Execution Case 42/1971 and realised Rupees 1,000/- from the judgment-debtor. Again the judgment-debtor is stated to have paid Rupees 100/- in Ex. C. 107/71 and thus in all he paid Rs. 1,100/- only towards the decree debt. Since the judgment-debtor committed default in payment of the balance of the decretal amount, the decree-holder filed the Execution Case 55 of 1972. The prayer in execution case was (a) by attachment and sale of movables, and (b) by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. The judgment-debtor resisted the attachment of movables. The decree-holder prayed for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. Both the lower courts have held that the judgment-debtor possessed agricultural lands and that he has sufficient means to pay. It is urged on behalf of the judgment-debtor-appellant by Mr. A.R. Kowjalgi, that in view of the Mysore Ordinance 2 of 1973, (the Mysore Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Ordinance, 1973), any sale of agricultural land in execution of a decree is prohibited under Clause (4) of the said Ordinance and that the means of the judgment-debtor should be calculated leaving out of account the agricultural lands belonging to him, since, according to him, the said lands are exempted from attachment under the explanation to Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code. But, it is to be seen that under Clause (7) of the said Ordinance it is open to the judgment-debtor to raise a loan on the agricultural lands belonging to him by offering the same as security in favour of a registered Co-operative Society or a Bank. Hence, this contention has to be rejected.

Mr. Kowjalgi prayed for time to pay the balance of decretal amount due before the end of October, 1973. Mr. K.I. Bhatta learned Counsel appearing for the decree-holder-appellant, has no objection to the judgment-debtor being granted time till the end of October, 1973. Since both the parties have agreed, the judgment-debtor-appellant is granted time till the end of October, 1973 to pay the entire balance of the decretal amount and on the failure to pay or deposit the same in Court within the specified time, the decree-holder is entitled to proceed with the execution and get the judgment-debtor arrested. This second appeal otherwise fails and it is dismissed. No costs.