IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 456 of 2005 --------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP. 355 /1998 IN OS.488/1995 OF PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE ) REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KOYATHODUKAYIL K.T. BICHIKOYA, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, SHAMEER NIVAS, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN ADV. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH ADV. SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M. ALIKOYA, S/O. MUHAMMED ALIAS ASAN KUNHIMON, RESIDING AT ANAMAD, CHAKKUMKADAVU PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. MUHAMMED ALIAS ASAN KUNHIMON, S/O. ALI, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.P.B. SAHASRANAMAN ADV. SRI.K. JAGADEESH ADV. SRI.T.S. HARIKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ C.R.P. No. 456 OF 2005 ............................................................................ Dated this the 10th April, 2008 O R D E R The decree holder in O.S.No. 488 of 1995 on the file of the court of the Sub Judge, Kozhikode is the Revision Petitioner. He filed E.P.No.355 of 1998 for realisation of the decree amount by attachment and sale of the property belonging to the 2nd respondent ( 2nd judgment debtor), who is a surety to the suit transaction. The extent of the property sought to be sold is three cents and a house thereon . 2. The second judgment debtor opposed the prayer in the application. He contended that he is an agricultural labourer and that the property sought to be sold is his residential house. He claimed the benefit of clause (c) of proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per clause (c) of the proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 60, 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 is exempted from attachment and sale. 3. The court below held that the judgment debtor is entitled to the benefit of the clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree holder challenges the said order in this Revision. 4. The decree holder did not adduce any evidence before the court below; nor did he produce any document. The second judgment debtor was examined as R.W.1. He stated that the property sought to be sold having an extent of 3 cents was granted to him by the Government out of the excess land taken over by the Government. He stated that in 1988, 'patta' was issued by the then Chief Minister . Ext.B1 is the 'patta'. The ration card of the petitioner for the period from 1996-2000 was produced as C.R.P. No. 456 OF 2005 2 Ext.B2. It is recorded therein as 'BPL' meaning thereby that the petitioner is a person below the poverty line. He stated that he has no other land other than the property sought to be sold. The second judgment debtor stated that he is residing in the house with his wife, three daughters and three sons and their wives and children. Altogether 12 persons are residing in the house, it is stated. In the evidence, the judgment debtor stated that if the property sought to be sold is sold in court auction, these 12 persons would be in streets. 5. The court below considered the evidence in the case and came to the conclusion that the second judgment debtor has satisfied the condition in clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The finding of the court below is arrived at on facts of the case and on appreciation of evidence. It cannot be said that the appreciation of evidence made by the court below is perverse. The extreme poverty of the second judgment debtor was taken note of by the court below. It is not disputed that the property was assigned by the Government under the Land Assignment Act to the second judgment debtor, out of the property which was taken over by the Government as excess land. It is established in the case by the evidence of R.W.1 that he is an agricultural labourer and that he is residing in the property. There was no contra evidence on the side of the decree holder. I do not find any ground to interfere in the Revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk