Medavati Rama Krishna Reddy And Anr. v. Peddada Sitalatha And Ors.

R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

(1) THESE two civil revision petitions are filed by the respective petitioners questioning the orders of the Principal District Munsif, Tadepalligudem who dismissed their petitions filed for attachment before judgment.

(2) THE petitioner in C.R.P. No. 3994/94 is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 309/94 and he filed the said suit against the respondents herein who are the wife and children of one P. Amrutha Rao who had borrowed some amount from the petitioner under a pronote and subsequently died without discharging the debt and leaving behind the respondents as his legal heirs. The suit was, therefore, filed against the respondents for recovery of the pronote amount. He also filed. A. 1668/1994 under Order 38 Rule 5 C. P. C. seeking attachment before judgment of the amounts due by way of gratuity, family benefit fund and group insurance amount to the deceased P. Amrutha Rao from the Principal of the government College in which the deceased was working during his life time. After the death of P. Amrutha Rao, the respondents became entitled to receive such amounts. They contested the said petition filed for attachment before judgment contending that such amounts like gratuity, family benefit fund and group Insurance amounts cannot be attached in view of the relevant provisions of Sec. 60 C. P. C. The learned District Munsif accepted such contentions and dismissed the petition holding that such amounts are exempted from attachment under the relevant provisions of Sec. 60 C.P.C. The present revision petition is, therefore, filed by the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit questioning such orders of the lower Court.

(3) C.R.P. No. 3942/94 is filed by the petitioner therein questioning the similar orders passed by the lower Court in. A. 1667/94 in O.S. No 308/94 which was also filed against the same respondents seeking attachment before judgment of the same amounts. As the point involved for consideration in both the revision petitions is the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(4) THE point for consideration is whether the amounts found due to the respondent representing Gratuity, Family Benefit Fund and Group Insurance amounts are not liable for attachment in view of the provisions of Sec. 60 C.P.C. and whether there are any valid reasons to interfere with the orders of the lower court?

(5) THE amounts which were sought to be attached before judgment in both the revision petitions represent the amounts which were due to be paid to the deceased P. Amrutha Rao towards Gratuity, Family Benefit Fund and Group insurance amounts. Section 60 (1) (g) C.P.C. provides that stipend and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government are not liable for attachment. Similarly, under the provisions of Sec. 60 (l) (kkk) which was introduced by way of amendment in our State in the year 1979, the amounts payable under the A. P. State Government Employees Family Benefit Fund Rules are also not liable for attachment. In view of such provisions, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners also admitted that such amounts representing Gratuity and Family benefit Fund are not liable for attachment in case the attachment is sought for against the concerned Government servant when he is alive. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that Group Insurance amounts found due to the Government employee are not exempted under Sec. 60 C.P.C. as no specific provision is made under any of the clauses in sub-section (1) of sec. 60 C.P.C., and as such, the amount due towards Group Insurance is liable for attachment even when the attachment is sought for during the life time of the concerned Government servant. But this contention cannot however be accepted. Till 31-10-1984 all Government Employees had to compulsorily contribute the specified amount every month from their salary towards Family benefit Fund and the said scheme was changed into Group Insurance Scheme with effect from 1-11-1984 under G.O. Ms. No. 293 dated 8-10-1984 and in view of the same, from 1-11-1984 onwards, every Government employee is compulsorily made to contribute the specified amount towards Group insurance Scheme and it is only a continuation of the earlier scheme under which contribution was being made towards Family Benefit Fund. Therefore, the provisions of Sec. 60 (l) (kkk) C.P.C. continue to apply even to the amount due under Group Insurance Scheme. Therefore, such amount due to a government employee under Group Insurance Scheme is also not liable for attachment if such attachment is sought against such Government employee I during his life time. Therefore, all the amounts found due towards Gratuity, family Benefit Fund and Group Insurance Scheme are not liable for attachment in case the attachment is sought for during the life time of the concerned government employee.

(6) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that eventhough such amounts can be said to be exempted from attachment when such attachment is sought to be effected during the life time of the concerned government servant, those amounts cannot be exempted from attachment when such attachment is sought for by filing a suit against the legal representatives of the concerned Government servant. His contention is that the benefit under the relevant provisions of Sec. 60 C.P.C. regarding the attachment of such amounts is given only to the concerned Government servant who is a debtor; that in case such Government servant expires and the suit is sought to be filed against his legal representatives for recovery of the amounts due from the deceased-debtor and when the attachment of such amounts which are since due to be paid to those legal heirs is sought for, such amounts cannot be exempted from attachment as they are no more the amounts due to the debtor. He has also tried to rely upon the decision reported in Yogesh Sharma vs. Devi dayap in support of his contention. In the case concerned in the said decision of the Delhi High Court, the property sought to be attached was the house of the judgment Debtor and exemption was claimed by the legal representatives of the Judgment Debtor under Sec. 60{l) (ccc) as prevailing in that State. The question that arose for consideration in that case was whether the sons of the judgment Debtor, who had executed the pronote having borrowed the amount and who subsequently died during the pendency of the suit, are entitled to claim exemption of such house from such attachment under Sec. 60 (l) (ccc). It was observed by the Delhi High Court that the exemption under Sec. 60 (l) (ccc) can be claimed only by the executant of the pronote who had borrowed the amount and who alone can be called as Judgment Debtor and that such exemption cannot be claimed by his legal representatives as they cannot be considered as Judgment Debtors and as their liability is limited to the estate of the deceased lying in their hands. In this connection, it is to be seen that by the same amendment in the State of A.P. by which the provisions of Clause (kkk) were introduced in Sec. 60 (l) C.P.C. in the year 1979. Explanation 2-A was also introduced and the said explanation as amended finally is as follows:-

"explanation 2-A:- Where any sum payable to a Government employee is exempt from attachment under the provisions of clauses (kk) and (kkk) such sum shall remain exempt from attachment notwithstanding the fact that owing to the death of the Government servant it is payable to some other person."

it is clear from such provisions of Explanation 2-A that the amounts due towards Family Benefit Fund and Group Insurance amounts are exempt from attachment notwithstanding the fact that owing to the death of the Government servant such amounts are payable to his legal representatives. Therefore, such amounts towards Family Benefit Fund and Group Insurance amounts due to the present respondents cannot be attached and the orders of the lower Q are valid and justified in so far as such amounts are concerned. But regard the amount due towards Gratuity, it is to be seen that there is no provisions introduced in Sec. 60 C. P. C. similar to Explanation 2-A granting exempt from attachment of the amounts due towards gratuity to the 1 representatives of a deceased Government servant. Under Clause (g sec. 60 (l) C.P.C., the amount due to a Government servant towards Gratuil no doubt exempted. But when such Government servant who is the del expires and when such amounts are due to be paid to his legal representation they cannot claim exemption relating to such amounts which became pay* to them. The Legislature, while enacting Explanation 2-A for giving the ben of exemption from attachment relating to the amounts such as Family Ber fund, has not chosen to give similar benefit to the legal representatives judgment Debtor regarding the amounts due by way of Gratuity as alre stated above. Therefore, in view of such circumstances, the amounts I towards gratuity are not eligible for exemption and the orders of the court to that extent are liable to be set aside.

(7) IN the result, both the revision petitions are allowed in part and the ore of the lower Court are modified holding that the amounts due to respondents towards Family Benefit Fund and Group Insurance amounts not liable for attachment and that the amount due towards Gratuity is, howe liable for attachment. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, i.e., party is directed to bear its own costs in both the revision petitions.