R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the orders dated 3-3-1993 passed in E. A. No. 125 of 1992 in E. P. No. 46/1991 in O. S. No. 1252/1988 on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

( 2 ) THE respondent which is Canara Bank is the Decree Holder in O. S. No. 1252/1988. The decree was sought to be executed against the second Judgment Debtor by name D. Dayanand who was a railway employee. He died during the pendency of the execution proceedings. Subsequently, the gratuity amount due to him and which was payable to his wife and other legal representatives was attached by issuing prohibitory order against the garnishee who is the Deputy Collector of Stores, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. The Decree Holder filed E. A. No. 125 of 1992 requesting the Court to execute the decree against the wife of the deceased-Judgment Debtor No. 2 who died during the pendency of the execution proceedings and compel her to pay the E. P. amount out of the gratuity amount lying to the credit of her deceased husband in the hands of the Deputy Controller of Stores, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. She contested the petition mainly contending that the gratuity amount due to her deceased husband is not liable for attachment and that the decree holder is not liable for the relief prayed for in the petition. The lower Court passed the impugned orders holding that the gratuity amount which was due to the deceased Judgment Debtor No. 2 became payable to his wife and other legal representatives after his death and such amount is not exempt from attachment under the provisions of Section 60 C. P. C. Questioning the said orders the present revision petition is filed by the wife of the deceased Judgment-Debtor No. 2 who was shown as third respondent in E. A. No. 125/1992.

( 3 ) THE only point that arise for consideration in this revision is whether the gratuity amount which was due to the deceased-Judgment Debtor No. 2 and which became payable to the revision petitioner herein and other legal representatives of the deceased is not liable for attachment ?

( 4 ) IT is an admitted fact that the amount which was attached is the gratuity amount which was payable to the deceased Judgment Debtor No. 2 who was a railway employee. The said amount is lying with the Deputy Controller of Stores, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and after the death of the deceased-Judgment Debtor No. 2 the said amount became payable to his wife and other legal representatives. Section 60 (1) (proviso) (g), C. P. C. provides that stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government are not liable for attachment. In view of such provisions it is contended by the revision petitioner who is the wife of the Judgment-Debtor No. 2 that the gratuity amount lying with the Deputy Controller of Stores, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and which was payable to the Judgment-Debtor No. 2 during his life time and to her and other legal representatives after the death of the Judgment-Debtor No. 2 is not liable for attachment. The contention of the respondent-Decree Holder, however, is that even though such gratuity amount is not liable for attachment during the life time of the employee, such amount is liable for attachment after the death of the employee inasmuch as such amount will be in the nature of a debt due to the legal representatives of the deceased from the employer with whom the amount is lying and as it will lose its character as gratuity when it became payable to the legal representatives of the deceased employee and as such, attachment can be effected relating to such amount. Such contention was accepted by the lower Court in view of the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in Sathyavathy v. Bhargavi AIR 1991 Kerala 377. It is observed in the said decision that the gratuity amount lying in the hands of the Department and due to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased employee will be in the n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document