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
(2010) 3 ALD 421
SKS,J
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
SKS,J
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,
SKS,J
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
