KARRA LAKSHMINARASIMHAYYA Vs. MAHANT PRAYAG DOSSJEE VARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a teacher in the T. T. D. High School, Tirupathi, drawing a salary of Rs. 52. On a decree obtained against him in a suit filed prior to 1st June 1937, Rupees 7-8-0 of his salary was attached on a consent order passed by the District Court of Chittoor in C. M. A. No. 35 of 1937 on 11th January 1938. In an execution petition filed in 1944 by the decree-holder the District Munsif held that the salary of the judgment-debtor was attachable despite the Amending Act V [6] of 1943 which repealed Act IX [9] of 1937. Both Acts made very important exemptions from attachment in the case of all persons, whether public officers or not, drawing a salary of less than Rs. 100. Section 3 of the Act IX [9] of 1937 made the amendments inapplicable to proceedings arising out of any suit instituted before 1st June 1937. This Act was one of those repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, XXV [25] of 1942 and a further Act, Act V [5] of 1943, further amending Section 60, Civil P. C, was subsequently enacted making certain modifications and amendments to this section, as already amended by Act, IX [9] of 1937, which amendments had been incorporated into Section 60. Section 3 of Act IX [9] of 1937 is not repeated in Act V [5] of 1943. The point arising for determination is whether under the law as it stands, the salaries of private persons in suits filed against them prior to 1st June 1987 are exempt from attachment upto Rs. 100 or whether such decrees also are to be regulated by the same procedure as decrees obtained subsequent to 1st June 1937. The District Munsif took the view that Act V [5] of 1943 made no alteration in the law as laid down by Act IX [9] of 1937. He held that his salary was still liable to be attached. The learned District Judge confirmed this finding following the Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Manilal Bhaichand v. Mohanlal Maganlal, A.I.R. (33) 1946 Bom. 102 : (I.L.R. (1945) Bom. 899).

(2.) The point involved is one of some importance affecting as it does a class of judgment-debtors in needy circumstances. The case which the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court were called upon to consider was of a clerk in the employment of a mill against whom a decree was passed in a suit filed on 1st June 1937. It was held that the whole of his salary including his dearness allowance was liable to attachment under Section 60, Civil P. C, as it stood prior to the Amending Act IX [9] of 1937 by virtue of Section 8 of that Act. 2a. One reason which led to that decision was that the amendment in Section 60, Civil P. C., effected by Act, is [9] of 1937 having been incorporated into the Code itself, there was no necessity of burdening the Statute book with Act IX [9] of 1937 and it was therefore repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act XXV [25] of 1942. The repeal therefore was held not to affect the rights and liabilities created by that Act which preserved for decree-holders in suits filed before 1st June 1937 a right to attach all salaries in accordance with Section 60 as it stood on the date of the amendment. Their Lordships observed in this connection :

(3.) Now Act IX [9] of 1937 has been repealed by Act V [5] of 1943 which, no doubt as observed in the Bombay decision so far as it related to amendments of Section 60 already effected by Act IX [9] of 1937 and incorporated in the section, made some other changes on this basis. Where however, I am with respect unable to agree is that Section 3 of Act IX [9] of 1937 can be brought within the category of these other amendments already incorporated in Section 60, Civil P. C., under cover of Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act XXV [25] of 1942. The exact wording of the first part of Section 4 which is relevant for our purposes, is this :