The plea of no means raised by the petitioner/judgment debtor has been turned down by the court below by the order impugned. Ext.A1 salary certificate showed that the petitioner had drawn an annual salary of about ` 1,50,000/- during the period 2005-06. Ext.A2 assets and liability statement reflected that the petitioner had 55 cents of land in Kattur Village and another 50 cents of land in Mannuthy Village. This is in addition to the Lancer car and Hero Honda motor cycle which he owned while availing the loan.
2. It is for the petitioner to establish that he has since sold the immovable property or the vehicles . There is paucity of evidence in that regard to hold that the petitioner has lost title and possession over the same. There is sufficient room for inference that the petitioner has dishonestly transferred the property in order to wriggle out of the liability to the respondent /decree holder.
3. The finding of the court below that the petitioner has the means to pay the decree debt calls for no interference. There O.P.(C) No. 539 of 2014 2 is no illegality in the execution court directing the arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison. I however permit the petitioner to pay the decree debt in eight equal monthly instalments starting from 1-3-2014. The coercive steps shall not be enforced if the petitioner complies with the conditions in time. The petitioner can be arrested and detained in civil prison if anyone instalment is defaulted by him.
The Original Petition is disposed of.
smm V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE