RAM LAL & ORS. versus PIARA LAL GOBINDRAM & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 03-05-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

198 
RAM LAL & ORS. 
v. 
PIARA LAL GOBINDRAM & ORS. 
May 3, 1973. 
[D. G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Clause (ccc) to proviso to S. 60(1)-As 
added by Pwijab Relief of Indebtedness Act 7 of 1934 as amended by Punjd/J 
Acts 12 of 1940 and 6 of 1942-Exemption from 
attachment-Scope of-
.Appellants using back portion of shop as residence-Portion of residential house 
occupied by .. appellants for purposes of the shop does tlot cease to be part of 
the residential house. 
The appellants, two brothers and their sons, constituted a firm. 
They were 
declared insolvent and the Official Receiver took possession of all their pro· 
perties including the building in dispute. The appellants filed an objection 
petition 
under 
Sec. 
60 
of 
the 
Code of 
Civil 
Procedure read 
with Sec. 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act in respect of taking possession of the 
building in dispute basing this upon clause (ccc) of the proviso sub-section (1). 
The Trial Court held that the entire building consists of two distinct units, the 
one being distinct business premises as a shop, while the other structure, on the 
back thereof, exclusively used a residential premises, and, therefore, upheld the 
objection petition of the appellants in respect of the residential portion and the 
upper storey thereon and dismissed it in respect of the rest of the building. 
On 
appeal the Dist. Judge and the Single Judge of the High Court held in favour of 
the appellants. 
·On a further appeal under the Letters Patent. the Division Bench purporting 
to follow the Fu11 Bench Decision of that Court in Ude Bhan and Ors. v. Kapoor 
Chand and Ors. allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the learned 
single Judge and restored the order of the Insolvency Judge. 
On ·appeal by certificate, allowing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) If a portion of the residential house is occupied by the Judg-
ment debtor Limself for the purpoSe of a shop that portion does not cease to 
be part of the residential house. 
Jn the circumstances and social conditions in 
this country it would be difficult to justify the conclusion that where a part 
of a residential house is used in connection with the· business or profession of 
the owner of that house that portion ceases to be part of the residential house. 
The Punjab High Court has taken the same view at least from the year 1951. 
The contrary view taken by the impugned judgment does not ftow from the full 
beoch judgment or the language of the Section. [20 ID) 
Ude Bhan & Ors. v. Kapoor Chand & Ors., I. L. R. 1966 (2) Punjab 400, 
Agha !afar Ali Khan v. Rildha Kishore, A.l.R. 1951 Punjab 433, distinguished. 
Firm Ganga Ram v. Firm lia Ram, A.l.R. 1957 Punjab 293 followed. 
Punjab Mercantile Bank Limited (in liquidation) Jullundur City v. Messers 
General Typewriter Co. Jullundur City, 1962 P.LR. 1081~ referred to. 
(2) There is no doubt that the building in question was the main residential 
house of .the appellants and it was occupied by them. The facts of the case 
bring it squarely within the scope of the section and the whole building is, 
therefore, exempt from attachment. [203A] 
ClvlL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1248 of 1967. 
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated April 7, 
1966 of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in Letters Patent No. 
296 of 1963. 
S. K. Mehta, K. R. Jagaraja and M. Qamaruddin, for . the appel-
lants. 
H. K. Puri, R. L. Roshan and S. K. Dhingra, for respondents 
Nos. 3-5, 9 & 10. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RAM LAL v. P!ARALAL GOBINDRAM (Alagiriswami, I.) 
199 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ALAGIRISWAMI, J. 
This is an appeal by certificate against the 
judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in a Letters 
Patent Appeal. 
The question for decision in this appeal depends upon the inter· 
pretation of clause ( ccc) added to the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 60 
of the Code .of Civil Procedure by Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act 7 
of 1934 as amended by Punjab Acts 12 of 1940 and 6 of 
1942 
eJ11empting from attachment-
"One main residential-house and other buildings attach-
ed to it (with the material and the sites thereof and the land 
immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their en· 
joyment) belonging to a judgment debtor other 
than 
an 
agriculturist and occupied by him : Provided that the pro· 
· tection afforded by this clause shall not extend to any proper· 
ty specific

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.