THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1116 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging order dated 19.02.2008 in E.P. No.16 of 2007 in O.S. No.53 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, whereunder and whereby the Execution Petition filed under Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for attachment of an amount of Rs.35,000/- being decreetal amount, from out of the amount lying in S.B. Account No. 01190018371 of State Bank of India, and thereafter issue prohibitory order under Order XXI Rule 52 CPC to the Manager, State Bank of India, Gooty directing him to withhold from paying the said amount to the proposed judgment debtors until further orders of the court, was allowed. The petitioners herein are judgment debtors 1 and 2 in the Execution Petition. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The suit is filed for recovery of amount. After the suit was decreed, when the judgment debtor failed to pay the decreetal amount, the decree holder filed the Execution Petition. After filing of the Execution Petition, the sole judgment debtor died and his legal representatives were brought on record as judgment debtors 2 and 3. When the amount of second petitioner/second judgment debtor was ordered to be attached, the present revision petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the amount under attachment is in the personal account of the judgment debtor no.2, it cannot be attached as it was not shown that the amount represents the estate of the deceased first judgment debtor, and that the amount being gratuity and pension of the deceased judgment debtor, the same has to be exempted from attachment under Section 60 CPC, and hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent/ decree holder contended that when once gratuity or pension is being released and fell into the hands of the deceased employee or his legal representatives, they loose their character as gratuity or pension, as the case may be, and therefore, the executing court rightly attached the amount, and it needs no interference from this court. 6. Clause (g) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 60 CPC saves from attachment and sale, stipends and gratuity of pensioners of Government, of local authority or of any other employer. The object underlying the provisions of Section 60 CPC, on the one hand, is to inform the decree holder as to the properties which are liable to attachment so as to enable him to execute the decree against the judgment debtor. At the same time, it seeks to protect a judgment debtor by granting exemption of certain properties from attachment and sale. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in D.Vimala v. Canara Bank, Mettuguda, Secunderabad[1], wherein it is held thus: “But, in view of the specific provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act and in view of the observations made by their Lordships in the above cited decisions of the Supreme Court, it is now held that gratuity amount payable to the legal representatives of the deceased employee are also not liable for attachment.” There is no dispute about the law laid down in the above decision. But, the above decision has no application to the facts of the present case because gratuity has not been released in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore, so long as the amount has not been released and lying to the credit of the deceased with the competent authority, it cannot be attached. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent relied on a decision in Bandi China Ramalinga Reddy @ China Ramalingaiah v. Nalluri Srinivasulu & another[2], wherein it is held thus: “Therefore, so long as pension, gratuity, etc. are not received by the beneficiary only they are exempt from attachment in view of Section 60 (1) (g) CPC. When once they reach the hands of the employee concerned, the exemption ceases to operate.” 9. Similarly, in another decision in Union of India & anr. V. Wing Commander R.R. Hingorani (Retd.)[3], it is observed thus: “ I n Jyoti Chit Fund’s case, the Court repelled the contention that since the civil servant had already retired, the provident fund amount, pension and other compulsory deposits which were in the hands of the Government and payable to him had ceased to retain their character as such provident fund or pension under section 3 and 4 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925. Krishya Iyer, J. speaking for himself and Chandrachud, J. observed: “On first principles and on precedent, we are clear in our minds that these sums, if they are of the character set up by the Union of India, are beyond the reach of the court’s power to attach. Section 2(a) of the Provident Funds Act has also to be read in this connection to remove possible doubts because this definitional clause is of wide amplitude. Moreover, Section 60 (1), provides (g) and (k), leave no doubt on the point of non-attachability. The matter is so plain that discussion is uncalled for. We may state without fear of contradiction that provident fund amounts, pensions and other compulsory deposits covered by the provisions we have referred to, retain their character until they reach the hands of the employee. The reality of the protection is reduced to illusory formality if we accept the interpretation sought.” 10. Similarly, in another decision in S.Nagappa v. K.P.Hanumappa[4], this court held thus: “On a reading of the entire scheme, it is quite apparent that under the said process, virtually the amount of pension is being credited in the accounts of the respective employees and simultaneously debited from the Government account. Thus, there is a payment by the Government and receipt by the employee. Once such payment is made, as held in the aforesaid decision, it cannot be said that the Government still holds any trust. In Union of India v. Radhakissen Agarwalla and another (AIR 1969 SC 762) considering the case whether the process of payment was still at the stage of cheque and the Apex Court held, that itself would not amount to be the payment and therefore an objection can validly be raised.” 11. From the above decisions, it is clear that so long as gratuity or pension is lying with the competent authorities and the same has not been released in favour of the employee/judgment debtor, exemption under Section 60 (g) CPC is available to the judgment debtor. Once gratuity or pension is released and came into the hands of the deceased employee or his legal representatives, it looses its character of gratuity or pension. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute before this court that the sum of Rs.35,000/-, being the retirement benefits of the deceased, has been credited to the bank account of the judgment debtor no.2. Hence, the exemption under Section 60 (g) CPC for attachment is not available to the said amount. Further more, the contention that it is her personal amount cannot be accepted because she received the amount by way of gratuity and pension which are the retirement benefits of her deceased husband. Considering these aspects, the executing court rightly allowed the execution petition, and none of the findings of the court below is shown to be illegal or perverse. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 11.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1116 OF 2008 11.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1116 OF 2008 11.2.2011 Between: A.Sunanda Babu (died) by LRs & others …Petitioners And Y.Mahaboob Basha & another …Respondents [1] 1997 (6) ALT 62 [2] 2006 (3) ALT 205 [3] (1987) 2 S.C.J. 60 [4] 2004 (2) ALT 364