T SAKUNTALA Vs. B SATYA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17-9-1997 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Eluru in E.A. No.217 of 1997 in E.P. No.82 of 1997 in OS No.74 of 1991. By the impugned order, the Court below rejected the petition filed by the decree-holder, on the ground that the pension of the respondents cannot be attached. The Court below relied upon a judgment of the High Court of Sindh reported in AIR (29) 1942 page 19 and also the judgment of the High Court of Madras reported in 1940 MWN page 1150. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that under Section 60 of CPC, pension is not attachable, but the commuted pension can be attached. Whereas, on the side of the respondents, reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Wing Commander, R.R. Hingorani, (1987) 2 SCJ 60, and also the judgment of the Madras High Court reported in C. Gopaiachariar v. Deepchand Sowear, AIR 1941 Mad.207, contending that the commuted pension also cannot be attached, since it is also a pension amount.

(2.) From the reading of the judgment of the High Court of Madras, (supra), I find that the High Court of Madras interpreting Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871, held that even the commuted pension cannot be attached in pursuance of an execution of a decree. I think it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the said judgment as under:

(3.) For the above reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.