Veerachari and Others vs Thimmamma @ Thimmakka

Srinivasan, J.—The petitioners claim the benefit of Section 68(1), proviso (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under that proviso, the 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 or a labourer or a domestic servant and occupied by him shall not be liable to attachment or sale. There are three conditions. First is that, the judgment-debtor should be an agriculturist or a labourer. Secondly, the house and other buildings etc., must be necessary for his enjoyment. Thirdly, the house must be occupied by the judgment-debtor. In this case, even assuming that the first and second requirements are satisfied, the third requirement has not been proved. There is contradictory evidence by the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners. While R.W.3 gives evidence that the house is in the occupation of R.W. 1 by name Venkataswami who is not a judgment-debtor, R.W. 2 states that he is in occupation of the house and he claims that he has been paying the house-tax. No document has been produced by the petitioners herein to prove that they are occupying the house.

In the circumstances, the executing Court is right in holding that the provisions of Section 68(1), proviso (c) of the CPC will not apply. Hence, the revision fails and is dismissed. No costs.