Challa Ramaiah and Another vs Desu Guruvaiah

Radhakrishna Rao, J.—The decree-holder filed E.P, No. 170 of 1984 in O.S. No. 466 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nandyal, under Order 21, Rule 66 of the Civil P.C. for realisation of the decretal amount by selling the E.P. schedule immovable property i.e. residential house. The judgment-debtor raised an objection that he is an agricultural labourer and he has no other property except the residential house and it is not liable to be attached and sold u/s 60, CPC and the E.P. has to be dismissed.

On behalf of the decree-holder, three witnesses were examined and similarly three witnesses were examined on behalf of the judgment-debtor. The learned District Munsif considering the evidence found that the judgment-debtor''s family is not owning any agricultural lands, that the judgment-debtor is a mason by profession, that he is getting Rs. 2.V- per day and he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 60. C.P.C. The District Munsif disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 as there are no merits in their evidence and overruled the objections. Against that order, the judgment-debtor preferred the present revision.

The contention of the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor is that u/s 60(c) read with Explanation IV to the section, the decree-holder is not entitled for the attachment and sale of the residential house in execution of decree for the amount that has been claimed by him. Section 60(1)(c), C.P.C. and Explanation IV to the Section read as follows:

"60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree --- (1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes. Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, moveable or Immovable belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf.

Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely : --

(a) & (b) x x x

(c) houses and other buildings (with 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.

(d) to (p) x x x

Explanations I to III x x x

Explanation IV -- For the purposes of this proviso, "wages" includes bonus and "laborers" includes a skilled, unskilled or semi-skilled laborers"

The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the plea that has been set up by the judgment-debtor that he is only an agricultural labourer has been disbelieved by the lower Court and so he is not entitled to fall back upon the version that has been set up by the decree-holder about the judgment-debtor living on masonry work. It is true that no new case can made out. But when two parties have adduced evidence with regard to divergent versions and when one version has been rejected and the other version has been accepted, it is for the appellate Court to consider whether the finding that has been given by the lower Court is just and correct, initially, the burden is on the judgment-debt or to show that he is entitled to the benefits of Section 60. But when once he has discharged his burden and the decree-holder adduces evidence that the judgment-debtor is not an agricultural labourer, but is only a mason, we have no other, alternative than to accept the finding given by the lower Court. The contention that no opportunity was given to show whether he was actually doing masonry work or contract work or daily work, and he is earning something has no substance. It is suffice to state that in the cause title of the petition also it is mentioned that the judgment-debtor is eking out his livelihood as a mason. Nothing has been mentioned that he has been doing masonry work and living thereby. The only simple word that has been mentioned in the cause-title is ''mason'' and the finding of the lower Court is that he is living by mason.

The finding of the learned District Munsif is that the judgment-debtor is eking out his livelihood as a mason. It is contended that as the trial Court found that the judgment-debtor (petitioner) is a mason he is entitled for the benefits of Section 60(1)(c) read with Explanation 4 of the C.P.C. and his residential house should not be attached and sold in execution of a decree and the trial Court ought to have dismissed the Execution Petition. In the Proviso, wages includes bonus and ''labourers'' includes "skilled", "unskilled" or "semi-skilled". Neither in Section 60(1)(c) nor in Explanation 4 it has been mentioned that skilled, unskilled or semi-skilled labourer limited to only agricultural labourer. The amendment reads as follows : --

"an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant."

By using the word ''or'' in between ''agriculturist'' and ''labourer'' we must, construe that the intention is that the benefit is not only restricted to agricultural labourers but to labourers also. If we take the word ''labourer'' coupled with Explanation 4, it can safely be held that it applies to skilled, unskilled or semi-skilled labourers and they are entitled to the benefits of Section 60(1)(c) read with Explanation 4 of the C.P.C.

A "laborers" is a person who earns his daily bread by personal manual labour, or in occupations which require little or no art, skill or previous education.

According to Random House Dictionary, the word "skilled" means having skill; trained or experienced in work that requires skill. "Semi-skilled" means having or requiring more training and skill than unskilled labour but less than skilled labour. In Webster Dictionary, the meaning of the word "mason" is given as follows : (1) Person whose work is building with stone, brick etc., (2) Stone cutter. According to Chamber''s Dictionary, a mason means "one who cuts, prepares, and lays stones a builder in stone." A mason by virtue of the nature of the work that has been done by him, can be termed as a skilled labourer.

The petitioner (J.D.R.) who is a mason and who is residing in his own residential house, is entitled to claim that his residential house is not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree as he is a skilled labourer and he is entitled for the benefits of Section 60(1)(c) read with Explanation 4 of the C.P.C. The lower Court having found that the petitioner (Judgment-debtor) is a mason, ought to have taken the meaning of the words "skilled", "semi-skilled" as found in Explanation 4 and ought to have allowed the objection raised by the petitioner by holding that his residential house is riot liable for attachment and sale. Therefore, the finding of the lower Court that the judgment-debtor is not an agricultural labourer though he is a mason by profession is not entitled for the benefits of Section 60(1)(c). C.P.C. is not correct and that finding is accordingly set aside. The judgment-debtor, as a mason, is entitled for the benefits of Section 60(1)(c), C.P.C read with Explanation IV.

In the result, the revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.