https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288651 The court held that the property, primarily used for residential purposes despite a small business operation on the ground floor, was not liable for attachment. The judgment-debtors were not estopped from raising objections, and the court emphasized the legislative intent to protect debtors' main residential houses from attachment. The building's primary residential use prevailed over the commercial aspect, leading to the decision that the house was not subject to attachment or sale in decree execution. The appeals were allowed, and each party was to bear their own costs. en-us Wed, 03 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jun 2020 14:08:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288651 The court held that the property, primarily used for residential purposes despite a small business operation on the ground floor, was not liable for attachment. The judgment-debtors were not estopped from raising objections, and the court emphasized the legislative intent to protect debtors' main residential houses from attachment. The building's primary residential use prevailed over the commercial aspect, leading to the decision that the house was not subject to attachment or sale in decree execution. The appeals were allowed, and each party was to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288651