Telangana High Court
Adapala Venu Madhav vs Golla Nageswara Rao on 7 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1023 of 2014
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2014 passed in E.P.No.132 of 2010 in O.S.No.58 of 2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam District.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/decree holder filed Execution Petition No.132 of 2010 to attach Rs.3,80,000/- with accrued interest from a Life Insurance Corporation (L.I.C.) policy in the name of the deceased G. Hanumantha Rao, citing a decree in O.S.No.58 of 2006. However, the trial court dismissed the petition on 20.01.2014, citing Section 60(1)(Kb) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which exempts life insurance policies from attachment. The Court below relied on the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bomminayana Nirmala vs. Rachapathu Krishna Murthy 1 , which held that life insurance policy amounts are intended to secure the heirs and legal representatives of the policyholder, and thus cannot be 1 (2010) 3 ALD 421 2 SKS,J C.R.P.No.1023 of 2014 attached. The petitioner now challenges this dismissal by way of filing the present civil revision petition.
3. Heard Sri Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Srinivas Karra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.7. Though notice served upon respondent Nos.1 to 6, none appeared on their behalf.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Court below is contrary to law, evidence, and facts. Despite a decree dated 09.09.2010, against respondent Nos.1 to 6, and an interim order dated 04.03.2006, in I.A.No.286 of 2006, directing respondent No.7 not to pay respondent Nos.1 to 6 under policy No.682045853, the judge dismissed the Execution Petition (EP). He further submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 6, being only siblings of the deceased, are not Class-I legal heirs, making their claim unmaintainable and that Section 60 (i) of CPC exemptions do not apply due to pending suit attachment. The attached amount is part of estate of late G. Hanumantha Rao, and the petitioner, having secured a decree, is entitled to it. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6 remained ex-parte, indicating no 3 SKS,J C.R.P.No.1023 of 2014 claim to the insurance amount, rendering the claim of respondent No.2 is unsustainable. Therefore, the interpretation of exemptions of the Court below is unjustifiable, leaving no alternative effective mode for recovering the decreetal amount. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the Court below by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company deposited the amount before the Court below itself, it is for the Court to decide to whom it has to be taken.
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that Section 60(1)(Kb) of CPC exempts life insurance policy proceeds from attachment. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, arises after the death of the policy holder, which does not attract this exemption. Nonetheless, since the policy was taken out on the life of the deceased, it falls under Section 60(1)(Kb) of CPC. The policy amount is not part of the attachable estate of the deceased for debt realization. Instead, 4 SKS,J C.R.P.No.1023 of 2014 the petitioner should pursue attachment of other inherited properties, if any, from Class II legal heirs. Following the Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bomminayana Nirmala (supra) and Section 60(1)(kb) of CPC, this Court holds that the policy cannot be attached, whereas when it comes to the hands of class II legal heirs, it becomes the estate of deceased, then the petitioner has to claim the same from them. Therefore, the order of the Court below is lawful, and this civil revision petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. In view thereof, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 20.01.2014 passed in E.P.No.132 of 2010 in O.S.No.58 of 2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam District.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 07.11.2024 SAI