Delhi residential house exemption under civil procedure law continues in income-tax recovery despite 1976 amendment repeal argument.

Clause (ccc) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as extended to Delhi under Parliamentary authority, continued to operate because Section 97(1) of the 1976 Amendment Act applied only to State Legislature or High Court amendments and did not cover the Delhi extension. The analysis also rejects implied repeal, finding no necessary inconsistency between the provisions. As Rule 10 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act preserves property exempt from attachment under the Code, the exemption for a qualifying main residential house remains available in tax recovery proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether clause (ccc) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as extended to Delhi from the Punjab relief legislation, stood repealed by Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, and whether the exemption for one main residential house remained available in tax recovery proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The provision in clause (ccc) was introduced through Punjab legislation and later extended to Delhi by notification under the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950. Once so extended, the provision derived its force in Delhi from Parliamentary authority under Article 246(4) of the Constitution of India and Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950. Section 97(1) of the 1976 Amendment Act applied only to amendments made by a State Legislature or a High Court, and therefore did not cover the provision as operative in Delhi. The Court also rejected implied repeal, holding that repeal by implication is not readily inferred and there was no necessary inconsistency between the provisions. Since Rule 10 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 exempts from tax recovery such property as is exempt from attachment under the Code of Civil Procedure, the Delhi exemption continued to govern recovery proceedings.

Conclusion: Clause (ccc) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable in Delhi, was not repealed by Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, and the exemption for a qualifying main residential house remained available against attachment and sale in income-tax recovery proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The challenged sale notice could not stand at this stage, the writ petitions were allowed, and the matter was left to the tax recovery officer to determine whether the property satisfied the factual requirements of the exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: A State amendment extended to a Union Territory under Parliamentary authority does not cease to operate there merely because Section 97(1) of the 1976 Amendment Act repeals State or High Court amendments in the principal Act; such repeal does not apply unless the amendment falls within the statutory class expressly covered.

---