Holding

Section 60 of the CPC does not apply to attachment and sale under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, so the exemption under clause (ccc) is inapplicable.

Summary

The respondent, Dina Nath, defaulted on liquor licence fees and was subjected to revenue recovery proceedings under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, resulting in a proclamation prohibiting the transfer of his half‑share in a residential property and notifying it for auction. He filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction, contending that the portion of the building he occupied as his residence was exempt from attachment under clause (ccc) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court dismissed the suit, the District Judge affirmed, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a limited injunction for the residential portion. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Section 60 of the CPC applies only to the execution of a decree of a civil court and does not extend to attachment and sale under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, which contains its own complete recovery mechanism. Consequently, the exemption under clause (ccc) was inapplicable, the attachment and auction were valid, and the respondent's suit was rightly dismissed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the lower courts' decrees.

Issues considered

Whether Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to attachment and sale in revenue recovery proceedings under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.
Whether the residential portion of the property is exempt from attachment under clause (ccc) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the CPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 2(2), s. 60(1), s. 60(1) proviso (ccc)
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887

Subjects

attachmentsaleexecution of decreerevenue recoveryPunjab Land Revenue ActCPC Section 60exemptionresidential propertyinjunction

Judgment

44
' . STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER '
~
A .. .,
I
v.
•
DINA'NATH
•.
·'
B November 21, 1983

[A.P. SEN AND D.P. MADON, JJ.)

Code. of Civil ProcedureJ908, Ss. 2 (2) a.nd 60(/) (ccc).

c' .ReSider.tial hous.e exe111p't-fro1n attachment and sale in execution (If eourt
deCree-Collecor ..whethef compete1't to order attach1ne11t and sale 'of residential
hnuS~ un~er Land Revenue Recovery. Act: .

.:Punjab Land RevcnUe Act 1887." ·Liquor' v"endor-Fail~re ·to pay licence
fee-'-Recovery initiated ·under Land Revenue Recoi•erj Act~Co/!ector. if' could
D o;der attacht11f!nt and sa/e.ofresid entiQ/ l10Use.

The resp-Ondent~a liquor vending licensee defaulted to pay license fee
J
inspit~ of rcpeatCd rem~ndears. Rec:oier.Y ProCeedings under t!1e Punjab ··Land
, ReVenue Act, 1887 were initiated aga_inst·him . . The Collector issued a prcicla-
mation prohibiting the tr·ansfer or CreatiQn ·or a charge by· the respondent on his
E 'half sha.re in an immoveable property, consistiOg of a' plot~af land· and a buil-
ding thereon, and notified th~ p~operty for ·auction.

The respondent, filed a suit for pern1al).ent injunctiOn restraining the
apjJellarit-State. a"nd the Collector from_ auctioning his half share, oil the iround .·•
that the building was being used by hi1n for his -1esidence, and he had no other
F residential house, an.d that therefore the half share of the re'sidcntial _h.ouse Was·

. .
excrript from attachrrient under .clause (ccc) of the proviso to sub-section ( J) of
seCtion 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908... The "trial court disn1issed the
suit and this order was con~rmed in appeal by the District.Judge.

Allowing the respondent's second appeal, the High Court upheld his
contention, and issued a: pCrmanent i"njunction only with' regard to that portion.
G . j)f thC? building in which he was r~siding. ·

HELD : (1) The High Court was wrong .·both in its criticism of the
H sub.ordinate court& ari~ ~n allowiri~ the r~sf>ondent·s. secohd a'ppeal. [847 EJ

••
PUNJAB v. DINA NATH (Madon, J.) 845

. 2. :section 60 of the COde. has nO ~pplication to attachfficn't and sale .
. in"any proceedings othei than in execution.pf a decree of a civil court. It applies · ·A
.only to Cxecution of a decree of civil court: It 4~clares what, prop-er'ties are
Iiablc ·ta be attached-and Sold hi execution of such. a ·decree and the proviso to
sub-acctfon (1) of section 60 sets out th~ pro~erti~ whiCh arc ~at tiahlc.to such
-attachment or sale. The expression '•such attachment or sale" in the proviso
refers to the attachment <ind sale mentioned in sub.:.section (1) Of secti911 60, that
is to attachment and sale i,n exe~Ution of a decrCe of a civil.court. The section
does n_ot apply to an attachmen~ and Sale under any other statute. unless made B.
expressly applicable thereto. [84.7 H; 848. A,B]

In the instant case· th.e auaChment and the auction sale were npt in
execution ·of any decree of a civil coUrt but Were iri purs1,1ance of an order
·made by an· officer authorised ii.dopt proceedings under the. Punjab
Land.Revenue Ac~. 1887 for recovery of rCven\J;e due to the State.· There is no C
provision in this Act which m·akes the provisions of section 60 of the Code
applicable to attachment and sale for ~eco~ery of reVenuC under. the said Act.
[848 D-E]

Civil Appeal No. 7494 · of
D
Appeal by Special :leave from the Judg!llent and· Order dated
the 6th May, 1981 of the Punjab~ Haryana. High Court in R-.S.A.
No. 2944 of 19.80. .

S.K. Bagga for the Appellants. E
The· Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MADoN, J. This appeal by speci~l leave from. the Judgment and
and Dec,ree in Second Appeal of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court 'involves the determination of the question whether section 60 · F
of the Code of Civil Procedure; 1908, applies to an attachment and
sale in revenue recovery proceedings adopted under the Punjab Land
Revenue
.
Act,
..
1887 (hereinafter
. .
referred to .as ''the' said Act").

The facts which have given rise .io this question are ·that 'Dina
Nath the Respondent along .with one Gora Lal and Sat Pal, had been G
granted a liquor vending licence for the year 1968-69 by the Excise .
· ·and T.axation Department of the'Sta(e of Punjab, Patiala. Division,"
. in respect. of which they had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,38,000 as· licence
fee. The· liceitcees paid a sum of Rs. 86,450, leavfog the balance
uilP,ai.d in spite of repeated reminders. Ultimately, rec~very procee- H
dings under the said Act. were started by the department and the
Collector, Excise and Taxation. Depattment, Patiala, by his· order .
846
. '

SUPRBME Cc;>URT RBPORTS (198411 s.r;:.rt

dated January 16, i976, issued a proclamation prohibiting the trans-
A fer or creation of a charge by the Respondent of his half share in 'an
immovabl.e. property consisting of a plot of land ·bearing Khewat
No. 374, Khatuni No. 511, Khasra No. 397/0-19, situate in village
Ghagga, with a building cons1!ructed. thereon. The auctiol! in respect
of the said share of the Respondent in the said property was notified
B for June 14, 1977. Just a day prior to the holding of the said auction
sale the Respondent filed a suit ip the Court of Sub-Judge, !st Class,
Patiala-C, be_ing Suit No. 472/13-6-77, against the State of Punjab
and the Collector-cµm-Deputy Excise ·and Taxation Commissioner, ·
Patiala Division, for a permahent injunction restraining the State al)d
the Collector-cum-Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner from
c auctioning his said half share. The contention of .the Respondent
was that a part of the building standing on the said plot of land was
being nsed by him for· his residence and he had .no other residential
house and, therefore, his said half share was exempt from attachment
under ciause (ccc) of the proviso to sub-section (I) of section 60 of
D the Code· of Civil Procedure, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Code'), inserted in the said ·section 60 by a State amendment. The
proviso to sub-section'(!) of the said section60 sets out· the proper·
ties which.are not liable to attachment or ·~ale, and. the said clause
(ccc) provides as follows :

E "(ccc) one main residential house and other. buildings
attached to it (with the material and the sites thereof and
the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary
for their enjoyment) belorfging to a judgment-debtor other
than an agriculturist and occupied by him;
F
P;ovided that the protection afforded by this clause
.. shall not 'extend to any property specifically. charged with
the debt sought.to be recovered.'1·
•
It is pertinent to note that in the said suit the Respondent did
G not challenge his liability: to pay the amount clajmed from him.
Several contentions were rai;ed in the written statement filed by the
Appellants, who were the defendants to the said suit, including the
contention that the property attached and notified. for sale was not
exempt' from attachment and sale. The Appellants also contested the . ·
H jurisdiction of the court. The Trial Court upheld both these conten'.
tious and dismissed the suit with cpsts, The Respondent· t.hen filed
PUNJAB ii. DINA NATH (Madon, J.) 847

an appeal to the District Judge, Patiala; !icing Civil Appeal No. 554
of 5.9. 79·. The Additional District Judge, Patiala, who heard·ihc said A
appeal, dismissed it with : costs. The Respondent thereupon
approached the Punjab and Haryana High· Court in- 'second appeal,
being Regular Second Appeal No. 2944 of 1980. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court, who heard the said appeal; after observing
that "the conclusion arrived~! l;iy the trial court on facts was per- B
verse whereas th" appellate court applied totally a wrong law. in
· deciding the appeal'', allowed the said second appeal, holding that
the portion of the said building used for residence- was exempt from
attachment and sale under clause (ccc) of the proviso to the said
sectio_n 60, .while that portion in which the liqµor shop was situated
was liable to be attached, and accordingly issued ·a permanent injunc- c
tion ·with regard to. the portion in which the Respondent was tesiding
and dismissed the suit so far as it related to the portion -of ihe .
building in which the liquor shop was situated. The parties were
further directed ·to bear their own costs. The question. of jurisdiction
· of the civil cour\ to entertain and try the suit filed by the Respondent
D
does not appear to have been raised before the High _Court. It is
against this judgment and decree of the High Court that this appeal
,.._ .is directed.

•t In our opinion, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was
' f.
wrong both in his criticism of the subordinate courts and in allowing E
J the Respondent's said Second Appeal. Section 60 of the Code-·
. specifies the properties which are liable to attachment and· sale in
~ execution ofa ·decree._ The opening words of sub-section (1) of
11 section 60 are "The following property is liable to attachment and
sale in execution of a decree". Clause (2) of section 2 of the Code •
tJ defines the· term "decree". The relevant provisions of the said F
i definition arc as follows : .
'~
),
0
,i (2) "decree'' means the formal ·expression of an
' adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing
it, ·conclusively determines the rights of the parties with
G
regard to an or any of the matters in. co11troversy. in the.
suit.and may be either preliminary of final. ... "

Section ·60 of the Code thus applies only to execution of the
clecrees of civil courtS and declares what properties are liable to be
H
attached and sold in execution of such a decree· and the· proviso to
sub-section (I) of sec.ti on 60 sets out the properties which are not
Hable to sue]l a.ttachment or sale. The opening wonjs of the said
.
848' . SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984) l S.C.R •
•
proviso: are "Provided tha~ the. following particulars shall not· be .. ' .
A . liable to such attachment. dr sale, . name'iy" .. :- . The expression.
"such ilttachlnent or sale" in .the said proviso refers to the attach-
ment and sale mentioned in sub-section (I) of section 60, that is, . to
·L . -

attachment and sale in executiOn of a a decree, ·On a plain reading
of the said section 60, it is clear that that section has no application
B to· attachment and sale in any proceedings other than iri execution of
a decree of a civil court. The provisiontof section 60 of the Code
do not apply to an attachment and sale under any other statute
i:nade expressly applicable thereto. .So far as the said Act is concer-
ned, it contains a· complete code providing for the modes and
machinery for recovery of arrears .of revenue. The attachment in
......
. question was levied.under the provisions of the said Act and the
sale which was n:qtified was also uniler the provisions of the said Act.
The attachment levied on, and the auction sale notified in respect of,
· the Respondent's half share in the said property were not in execution
of any decree of a civil court but were in pursuance of the order
-J..'
,iI
. made ·by an officer authorized to adopt proceedings under the said
D Act for recovery of revenue due to the State. There is .no provision ~
in the said Act which makes. the provisions of section 60 .of the Code
applicable t~ attchment and sale for recovery of revenue under the •
-t· "
said Act. . The properti~s. if any, which are exempt from attachment
and sale in revenue· recovery proceedings under the said. Act would "' ii
.E be only such properties as ..are so exempted by the said Act. There is
no provision in the said Act corresponding to cl. (ccc) of the proviso
to .sub-sedion (1) of 'cct16n 60 of the Code, and the half share of the
. Respondent in the said·· property was, therefore; ·not exempt from
attachment and sale in revenue. recovery proceedings adopted under.
.\,

I
F
the said Act. Consequently, thc·Res(londent's suit was ·liable ·to 6e·
dismissed dn this ground alone. ·

For.the reasons set out above, we allow ·this appeal and set
J I'!
II
~.
. aside the Judgment arid Decree of of the Punjab anc! · Haryana High

G
C~nrt and dismiss with costs.the said Regular Second Appeal No .
. 2944 of 1980 filed by the Respondent and restore the decree passed
· by.the Addition District Judge, Patiala-C, in Civil Appeal No. 554 of.
•
. 5,9,79 and th~ decree passed by the Sub-!udge, i'st C.Jass, Patiala-C,
. in Snit No. 472/13.6:77.

H The Respondent will pay to the ~ppellants the costs of this I
. .· ~
appeal.

N.V.~. . ·Appeal allowed.
r-· .,-~