Murukan v. Raveendran and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. Jayachandran
Judgment Date: 2024-01-11
Court Decision / Holding: The Original Petition is dismissed; the court holds that the petitioner’s asserted status as a labourer is not sufficiently proved, distinguishable from the facts in Vasanthakumari, and hence does not fall within Section 60(1)(c) CPC.
Final Disposition: Original Petition dismissed; petition fails

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Murukan

Respondents

Raveendran
Sunghu
Babu
Saju
Sudhi
Unnikrishnan
Santosh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. Madhu
• C.R. Saradamani
• Renjish S. Menon
• Vrinda T.S.

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Justus
• M.N. Vedara j

Case Synopsis & Summary

Murukan, the second judgment debtor in E.P. No. 29/2015 of the Principal Sub Court, Kochi, challenges Ext. P-8, the order dismissing his objection under Section 60(1)(c) CPC to the attachment/execution of his dwelling. In OP(C) 2763/2023, he contends that as a labourer occupying the house in the property he is entitled to the exemption under 60(1)(c), and he relies on a single-judge decision in Vasanthakumari v. Raichal Banitta (2009) and on Exts. P-10 and P-11 to show a fishing livelihood. The respondents argue that the petitioner has repeatedly sought to deflect the decree’s fruits, has been offered security options (Bank Guarantee) but failed to comply, and that a prior claim by his children asserted only a one-third right; the execution was proceeded against accordingly. The Sub Judge dismissed the exemption objection, and this Court reviews. On evaluation, the Court finds that the pleadings do not establish that the petitioner is a labourer within the meaning of Section 60(1)(c). The evidence—Exts. P-10 (passbook) and P-11 (cooperative society letter)—does not prove salaried or dependent labour, nor a defined livelihood; by distinguishing Vasanthakumari, the Court concludes that the facts are different. Therefore, the original petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that, as a labourer occupying a house on the property, he is entitled to exemption under Section 60(1)(c) CPC. He relies on Vasanthakumari v. Raichal Banitta (2009) to support the claim and points to Ext. P-10 (passbook) and Ext. P-11 (Fishermen Welfare Society proceedings) as evidence of a fisherman’s livelihood. He asserts that denial of exemption would deprive him of his livelihood and livelihood-related shelter.

Contentions of Respondents

The decree holder/respondents submit that the petitioner has repeatedly sought to thwart the decree’s fruits, has been offered security (Bank Guarantee) but failed to comply, and that a prior claim petition by his children established only a one-third right. They contend the exemption request was rightly dismissed by the Sub Judge; the pleadings do not sufficiently prove that the petitioner is a labourer within the meaning of Section 60(1)(c); and that Exts. P-10 and P-11 do not conclusively establish a qualifying livelihood.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Vasanthakumari v. Raichal Banitta	2009 (4) KHC 951	Distinguished	The court notes the facts in Vasanthakumari are distinguishable; the present case lacks evidence of the petitioner’s status as a labourer under Section 60(1)(c), unlike the prawn peeling worker in Vasanthakumari.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024/21ST POUSHA, 1945** **OP(C) NO.2763 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 46/2009 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOCHI EP 29/2015 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOCHI** ## **PETITIONER/SECOND JUDGMENT DEBTOR/SECOND DEFENDANT** MURUKAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, RESIDING AT PANDIKASALAKKAL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD POST AND VILLAGE, EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682502. BY ADVS. T.MADHU C.R.SARADAMANI RENJISH S. MENON VRINDA T.S. ## **RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER AND JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 & 3 TO 7/ PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1 & 3:** 1 RAVEENDRAN, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, ANCHALSSERI HOUSE, ELANKUNNAPUZHA POST AND VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682502. 2 SUNGHU, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, RESIDING AT SHANGARADI HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE AND POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682502. 3 BABU, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, THETTETHARA HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE AND POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682502. 4 SAJU, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.BAHULEYAN, MAREKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE AND POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682502. **OP(C) No.2763 of 2023** **- 2 -** 5 SUDHI, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.PICHAPPAN, ANJUTHIKKAL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE AND POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682502. 6 UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.ASOKAN, RESIDING AT PERUMPADAPPIL HOUSE, CHERAI MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE AND POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682502. 7 SANTHOSH, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, PUNNAKKATTUTHARA HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE AND POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 68502. BY ADVS. S.JUSTUS M.N.VEDARAJ(K/624/2006) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **OP(C) No.2763 of 2023** **- 3 -** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated, this the 11[th] January, 2024** **The petitioner herein is the 2[nd] judgment debtor in E.P.No.29/2015 of the Principal Sub Court, Kochi. He is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, which dismissed his objection to the E.P seeking exemption under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.** **2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.** **3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a labourer and, therefore, his properties are liable to be exempted under Section 60(1)(c) of the C.P.C., inasmuch as he is occupying the house situated in that building. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this** **OP(C) No.2763 of 2023** **- 4 -** **Court in Vasanthakumari v. Raichal Banitta [2009 (4) KHC 951] in support of the above contention. Learned counsel also relied upon Ext.P10 pass book and Ext.P11 proceedings to drive home that the petitioner is a fisherman and thus a labourer.** **4. Per contra, this application was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder. Learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner had approached this Court on several occasions, so as to deny the 1[st] respondent from the fruits of the decree. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was given umpteen opportunities to furnish security in the form of Bank Guarantee, which the petitioner has not complied with, despite extension of time. When the property was sought to be proceeded against in the E.P, a claim petition was caused to be filed by the children** **OP(C) No.2763 of 2023** ## **- 5 -** **of the petitioner, contending that the petitioner has only one-third right over the property, which claim petition was allowed. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent/decree holder proceeded against the petitioner in respect of his one-third right, at which point of time, the new contention based on Section 60(1)(c) is propounded and an objection preferred. According to the learned counsel, the said objection was rightly dismissed by the learned Sub Judge, warranting no interference from this Court.** **5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds little merit in the instant Original Petition. Ext.P7 is the objection preferred by the petitioner, who is the 2[nd] judgment debtor, against the draft sale proclamation. The petitioner's contention therein in paragraph no.3 is that he is seeking his livelihood by catching fishes in inland** **OP(C) No.2763 of 2023** ## **- 6 -** **waters and at times in sea, as 'labours'. This Court is of the opinion that the above pleading is far from sufficient to establish that the petitioner is a labourer, to fit into the description in Section 60(1)c) of the C.P.C. If the petitioner is catching fishes in the inland waters by himself, the same amounts to a self employment for the purpose of livelihood. At times, he claims to catch fishes from the sea as a labourer. However, no details as to in whose boat, he is employed and what are the terms of his labour etc., are pleaded. There are no pleadings even to arrive at a** _**prima facie**_ **satisfaction that the petitioner is a labourer entitled to the benefit of Section 60(1)(c) of the C.P.C.** **6. The learned Sub Judge had relied upon an agreement, to dismiss the petitioner's claim, as per which money is borrowed from the 1[st]** **OP(C) No.2763 of 2023** **- 7 -** **respondent for the purpose of purchasing fishing equipments. The same would again militate against the petitioner's claim that he is only a labourer. This Court has also perused Exts.P10 and P11. Ext.P10 is a pass book, which would indicate that the petitioner is a fisherman and Ext.P11 is a letter issued from the Fishermen Development Welfare Co-operative Society, which only indicates that, in substitution of three persons including the petitioner, three others have been employed in a group by name 'Amrita Vahini'. The real purport of Ext.P11 is not fully clear. Suffice to observe that neither Ext.P10, nor Ext.P11 would indicate that the petitioner is a labourer, qualified for the exemption under Section 61(1)(c) of the C.P.C.** **7. This Court notice that the facts in Vasanthakumari (supra) is clearly** **distinguishable, since the petitioner therein** **OP(C) No.2763 of 2023** **- 8 -** **was employed as a prawn peeling worker, thus fitting into the category of labourer, squarely. The facts at hand are different, distinct and distinguishable.** **In the circumstances, this Original Petition fails and the same will stand dismissed.** **Sd/-** ## **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ww **OP(C) No.2763 of 2023** ## **- 9 -** ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2763/2023** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-P1 THE ABOVE SUIT WAS FILED AS AN INDIGENT PERSON. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.46/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, KOCHI. - EXHIBIT-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27/3/2014 IN O.S. NO.46/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOCHI. - EXHIBIT-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/5/2018 IN O.P(C) NO.1463/2017 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. - EXHIBIT-P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/3/2023 IN I.A.NO.1/2023 IN O.P(C) NO.1463/2017 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. - EXHIBIT-P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 31/3/2015 IN E.P. NO.29/2015 IN O.S.NO.46/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, KOCHI. - EXHIBIT-P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/3/2021 IN E.A.NO.155/2019 IN E.P. NO.29/2015 IN O.S.NO.46/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, KOCHI. - EXHIBIT-P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 28/10/2023 IN E.P.NO.29/2015 IN O.S. NO.46/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, KOCHI. - EXHIBIT-P8 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2/12/2023 IN E.P.NO.29/2015 IN O.S.NO.46/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, KOCHI. **OP(C) No.2763 of 2023** ## **- 10 -** EXHIBIT-P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION DATED 28/10/2023 IN E.P.NO.29/2015 IN O.S.NO.46/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, KOCHI. EXHIBIT-P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PASSBOOK ISSUED BY THE KERALA MALSYATHOZHILALI KSHEMANIDHI BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21/3/2016 OF THE EDAVANAKKAD AYYAMPILLY FISHERMEN WELFARE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY.