Whether monthly pension received by judgment debtor is exempt from attachment in execution of decree?

In the light of the decisions cited supra, I am of the view that the petitioner/judgment debtor who receives a monthly pension of Rs. 12000/- will be treated as capital income and when it reaches the hands of the petitioner, it will be treated as his income. The contention of the petitioner that the monthly pension received by him cannot be considered as his income and it is exempted from attachment has no relevance in the light of the aforesaid decisions. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the other members of his family are depending fully on the petitioner. The attempt of the petitioner is to avoid payment of the decree debt to the respondent and this kind of nature of the petitioner/judgment debtor cannot be accepted by a court of law. In the result, this petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP(C) No. 771 of 2015

Decided On: 21.05.2018

 Muralee Mohan Pillai Vs.  T.V. Varghese

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Annie John, J.

Citation: AIR 2019(NOC) 41 Kerala

Print Page

Supreme Court: Court can not attach pension and gratuity amount even after converted to cash

We also agree with Ms. Shobha that the High Court could not have gone behind the decree in the execution proceedings and the alteration in the manner of recovery of the decretal amount was erroneous and cannot be sustained. We also agree with Ms. Shobha that even after the retiral benefits, such as pension and gratuity, had been received by the appellant, they did not lose their character and continued to be covered by proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code. Except for the decision in the Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance case (supra), where a contrary view was taken, the consistent view taken thereafter support the contention that merely because of the fact that gratuity and pensionary benefits had been received by the appellant in cash, it could no longer be identified as such retiral benefits paid to the appellant.

Supreme Court of India

Radhey Shyam Gupta vs Punjab National Bank & Anr on 4 November, 2008

Bench: Altamas Kabir, Markandey Katju

Citation:(2009)1SCC376                                                                              

Print Page

Whether court can permit attachment of pension amount in execution of decree?

 It is well settled that attachment of pension amount cannot be

made for realization of any outstanding.  In this aspect, the above decision

of the Apex Court relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner can be usefully quoted, wherein, in paragraph No.33, the Supreme

Court has observed that the pension and gratuity amount should not attached

under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. Paragraph No.33 reads as

follows:-

        33. However, we are also of the view that having regard to proviso (g)

to Section 60(1) of the Code, the High Court committed a jurisdictional error

in directing that a portion of the decretal amount be satisfied from the

fixed deposit receipts of the appellant held by the Bank. The High Court also

erred in placing the onus on the appellant to produce the Matador in question

for being auctioned for recovery of the decretal dues. In other words, the

High Court erred in altering the decree of the trial Court in it revisional

jurisdiction, particularly, when the pension and gratuity of the appellant,

which had been converted into fixed deposits, could not be attached under the

provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision in Jyothi Chit Fund

case has been considerably watered down by later decision which have been 

indicated in para 22 hereinbefore and it has been held that gratuity payable

would not be liable to attachment for satisfaction of a court decree in view

of proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code.?

                7.      Therefore, if there is any outstanding due payable by the

petitioner, it is for the respondents bank to work out their remedy to

recover the said amount, in the manner known to and permissible by law,

before the appropriate forum.  Without doing so, resorting to attach the

pension amount by way of passing the impugned order is impermissible. 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED : 27.11.2015  

CORAM   

 MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU               

W.P.(MD)No.17838 of 2015   

and 

M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 

A.Muthuiruvakkal    Vs.The State Bank of India,

  

Print Page

Whether court can attach part of pension in execution of decree?

I have thoughtfully considered the pleas set up by the judgment debtor-petitioner and do not find any merits in the same. Clause (g) to the proviso of Sub-section 1 of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides certain categories of properties which could not be subjected to attachment and the same reads as under:

"60. Property liable to attachment end sale in execution of decree (1). The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes......

Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:-
a tO f XXX XXX(g) stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the government [or of a local authority or of any other employer], or payable out of any service family pension found notified in the official Gazette by [the Central Government or the State Government] in this behalf, and political pensions.

XX XX XXExplanation I- The moneys payable in relation to the matters mentioned in Clauses (g), (h), (i), (ia), (j), (i) and (o) are exempt from attachment or sale, whether before or after they are actually payable, and, in the case of salary, the attachable portion thereof is liable to attachment, whether before or after it is actually payable."

5. The judgment debtor-petitioner has miserably failed to show as to how any of his stipends and gratuities payable to pensioners of the Government has been ordered to be attached. There is neither any irregularity nor any illegality in the impugned order passed by the executing Court. Therefore, the revision petition is wholly mis-conceived and is thus liable to be dismissed.

Equivalent Citation : AIR 2003 P and H 38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Civil Revision No. 1924 of 2002

Decided On: 10.04.2002

 Ram Kanvar Vs. Ram Ricchhpal Banarsi Dass

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.M. Kumar, J.

Print Page