IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 OP (FC).No. 1976 of 2011(R) --------------------------- OP.84/2009 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER -------------------- VELAYUDHAN, CHATHAMANSSERIYIL HOUSE, EDALAKKAD KARA, THABOR P.O., ALUVA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR RESPONDENT ------------------- DEEPA MOL, D/O.BALAN, AGED 31 YEARS, KARTHANAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, UZHAVOOR KARA, UZHAVOOR EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.ANANTHANARAYANAN SRI.A.K.HARIDAS FOR R THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- O.P (FC) No. 1976 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J. The second respondent in the proceedings in execution of a compromise decree of the Family Court is the petitioner in this matter. He challenges the order by which the court below over ruled his objections. The compromise decree is issued between him, his son and the son's divorced wife. The divorce is effected in terms of the compromise. Certain terms are made for payments. That became a subject matter of execution proceedings. The second respondent in the execution proceedings objected to the execution on the ground that the original petition was settled out of court without consent. This objection cannot be considered in execution. The compromise decree was not challenged in accordance with the relevant and statutory provisions. The second objection, that he now projected before us is that he was entitled protection under Section 60 (1) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. We do not find O.P (FC) No. 1976 OF 2011 2 any syllable in his written objections that he is an agriculturist or a domestic servant. He only pleaded that under Section (c), the house and land appurtenant to it, which belongs to a labourer and occupied by him, shall not be put to sale for recovery of the decree debt. Yet, we do not see any pleading in his objections that he is a labourer and is, therefore, eligible to the protection as per the provisions of Section 60 (1) (c). No evidence was also tendered to substantiate any such ground. On facts, the impugned order proceeds also applying the decision of this Court in Sunitha v. Ramesh [2010(3) KLT 501] to the effect that the benefit of Section 60(1)(c) of CPC would not be to the aid of any person who is held liable on the basis of a fiduciary relationship. Under these circumstances and for such reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal hence fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE dmb