The judgment establishes the principle that agreements opposed to public policy and statutory provisions cannot be enforced, and the distinction between personal and public interests in the context of waiver of rights.

Kunhi Raman, J.

1. An interesting question of law under Section 60, Civil Procedure Code arises for determination in this civil revision petition. Since the respondent was not represented by advocate, Mr. Krishna Rao was asked to assist the Court by appearing as amicus curicae and he has very kindly placed before the Court all the authorities relevant to the point involved in the case.:

2. The question which the Court below had to decide was, whether an arrangement made by an employee of the Bezwada Municipality, who was drawing a salary of Rs. 100 a month, that his creditor who had obtained a decree against him may take Rs. 15 per month out of his salary in satisfaction of the decree, is. enforceable in law. The agreement between the parties was reduced to writing and Ex. A is the document that was relied on in the Court below. It professes to be a salary assignment deed which prima facie is opposed to the provisions of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act which prohibits assignment of salary or pension. In the body of the document, as already indicated, the creditor was given the power of collecting Rs. 15 a month out of the debtors salary. To enforce this agreement, an execution petition was filed in the lower Court by the petitioner here, who is the decree-holder, for attaching Rs. 15 per month out of the Salary of the judgment-debtor who is the respondent here. Although notice was served on the judgment-debtor, he did not choose to appear in the Court below. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, has held that although the agreement was proved, the object of the agreement was opposed to public policy inasmuch as the provisions of Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code which prohibit attachment of salary of persons getting a salary of Rs. 100 and less than Rs. 100 a month, are based upon public policy and therefore an "agreement in contravention of these provisions cannot be upheld by a Court of law.

3. The decree-holder has filed this petition for revising the order and his learned Counsel, Mr. Appa Rao argues that it is open to a judgment-debtor in the position of the defendant to waive the right conferred on him by Section 60 and that therefore the agreement, Ex. A, is strictly enforceable in law. In support of this contention he relies upon two decisions of the Lahore High Court, The first is reported in Jagannath v. Alia Dad A.I.R. 1939 Lah. 539 and it was followed by a later decision reported in Rajindar Kumar v. Chetanlal A.I.R. 1940 Lah. 65. Both these decisions are of single Judges of that High Court who have followed the principle recognised in an earlier decision, of the same High Court reported in Chittar Mal v. Mt. Bam Devi A.I.R. 1935 Lah. 164 which is a decision of a Bench of two Judges. That decision, however, related to agricultural land which was sought to be attached and sold contrary to the provisions of Section 60, of the Code. The view taken in Lahore is that Section 60 imposes a prohibition against forcible attachment of property and that it is open to a person who has obtained the consent of the party for whose protection provision is made in Section 60 to effect an attachment, contrary to the provisions of the section. Mr. Krishna Rao, the learned Counsel who appears as amicus curiae, invites the attention of the Court to a recent decision of a Bench of the Bombay High Court reported in Postmaster-General, Bombay v. Chenmal Mayachand I.L.R. (1941) Bom. 415 in which the question has been fully considered and the view taken by the Lahore High Court has been dissented from. In the leading judgment reliance was placed upon a passage in Halsburys Laws of England, Hailsham Edition, Vol. IV, page 471, Section 869:

There are some choses in action which have never been assignable; and, broadly speaking, it may be said that the ground of their non-assign-ability is denoted by that comprehensive expression public policy. Thus public policy forbids that effect should be given to assignments of pensi