CPC

Introduction
Every civil lawsuit has three stages, beginning with the filing of the lawsuit, followed by the
decision on the lawsuit, and then the actual litigation itself. The litigation’s implementation
phase, also known as the execution phase, is where the decision’s outcomes are put into practice.
A court may order the transfer of certain debtor property to a creditor or the sale of such property
for the benefit of the creditor through the legal process of attachment. Any property that belongs
to the judgement debtor, or any property over which he has disposing authority that he may
exercise for his own benefit, is subject to attachment and sale in the course of carrying out a
judgement. The subject matter of property attachment is covered in Sections 60 to 64 and Rules
41 to 57 of Order 21 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This article discusses Section 60
of CPC, 1908 specific alongside judicial reasoning concerning the same.

All about Section 60 of

CPC, 1908
Property that can be attached and property that cannot be attached are both covered under
Section 60 of CPC, 1908. All movable property belonging to the judgement debtor, excluding
assets that are expressly excluded, including lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money,
bank notes, checks, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, government securities, bonds or
other securities for money, debts, and shares in a corporation, may be attached and sold in
fulfilment of a judgement against him. The decree described in this Section is not a mortgage
decree; it is merely a money decree. It is crucial that the property not only belongs to the
judgement debtor but also that he has the ability to dispose of it in his favour.
The proviso covers the property excluded from attachment and sale to Section 60(1). Agriculture
products are partially excluded from the attachment under Section 61. It comprises necessities
like clothing, bedding, kitchenware, animal husbandry instruments, dwellings for farmers,
wages, pensions, and gratuities, as well as deposits that are required and the right to future
maintenance. Regarding whether the judgement-debtor has the option to forego the advantage
granted by this proviso, there are two opposing views.

As such, Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code is not exhaustive by nature, as have been rightly
observed in the case of Ramesh Himmatlal Shah v. Harsukh Jadhavji Joshi (1975). It also
includes any other saleable property, both movable and immovable, whether it is held in the
judgement debtor’s own name or on his behalf by a third party. Right to occupy a flat is tangible
property that can be sold or attached. Therefore, if a particular species of property is otherwise
marketable, its specific exclusion from inclusion under Section 60 has no bearing on its
marketability.

The Delhi High Court’s observation in the 2019 case of Ms. Sujata Kapoor v. Union Bank Of
India And Ors had further summarised that the main clause of Section 60 CPC lists several
properties owned by the judgement-debtor that is subject to attachment and sale in order to carry
out a judgement, including lands, homes, and other structures. However, the addendum to
Section 60(1) makes exceptions for certain types of properties that are not subject to attachment
and sale. Evidently, the Parliament included an exemption for the poorest classes of people,
including farmers, labourers, and domestic helpers, in Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 60(1).

Nature, Scope and Objective

Attachment of property is one of the modes of execution of a decree in a civil suit. In a
decree, the court may require a person(defendant) to pay an amount to the decree-holder.
In cases where the defendant fails to pay the required sum, the court can, in the execution
of its decree, attach the movable and immovable property of the defendant and recover
the amount which is due by the disposal of these assets. However, there are some assets
which cannot be attached to recover the due amount.

This article goes through various modes adopted by courts in executing a decree in a suit
with special emphasis on “Attachment of property”. It also examines the various
provisions relating to attachment in the Code.

Property which can be attached

Attachment is a legal term which refers to the action of seizing property in anticipation of
a favourable ruling for a plaintiff who claims to owed money by the defendant. Decree
Holder is Dominus litis(person to whom the suit belongs) and he h.as the right to choose
the mode of execution from those available to him. Neither the Court nor the Judgement
debtor can force or persuade him to choose a particular mode of execution. This can be
referred from the case V. Dharmavenamma v. C. Subrahmanyam Mandadi.

In the process of attachment, the court at the request of the decree-holder designates
specific property owned by the debtor to be transferred to the creditor or sold for the
benefit of the creditor. Sections 60 to Section 64 and Rules 41-57 of Order 21 of CPC
1908, deals with the matter of attachment of property.

Section 60 CPC,1908 describes the property which can and cannot be attached while
execution. Several types of property are liable for attachment and sale in execution of a
decree like lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, banknotes, checks, bills of
exchange, hundis, government securities, bonds or other securities etc., and things on
which he has a disposing power. There is express mention of particulars which shall not
be liable for attachment or sale. The decree as mentioned in this section is only a money
decree and it does not include a mortgage decree. Therefore, it is important that the
property not only belongs to the judgement-debtor but also he has disposing power on it.

In M. Balarajan vs. M. Narasamma, it was held that the said house of the JUdgement-
debtor was liable to be sold for execution of the decree as his contention of agricultural
produce was declined.

Section 61 grants partial exemption to agricultural produce- The state Government may
by general or special order published in the Official Gazette declare any piece of
agricultural land for the purpose until next harvest season for the due cultivation of land
and support of the Judgement-debtor and his family, exempt that property from being
attached or sold in execution of the decree.

Section 62 talks about seizure of property in case of dwelling house. No person executing
under the code will enter the premises of a dwelling house after sunset and before sunrise.
No door of such dwelling house can be broken without the knowledge of the Judgement-
debtor. Where a woman resides in such house and she is not allowed to appear in public.
The person executing has to give her a notice to be at liberty to withdraw and also
reasonable time to do the same. Once she withdraws he has the power to enter the
premises.

Section 63 says that where the property attached in execution of decree is going on in
several courts then the final decision of the court of higher grade prevails and where the
court are at same grades then the court where the case of attachment came first will hold a
higher value.

Property which cannot be attached

Some kind of property which cannot be attached and sold in execution of a decree is
expressly mentioned in Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Particulars like
wearing apparel, cooking vessels, beds, tools of artisans, books of accounts, any right of
personal service, wife and children, stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the
Government etc. and many more.

Modes of attachment
Rule 43 to Rule 54 of Order 21 lays down a proper procedure for attachment for movable
and immovable property.

Order XXI Rule 54- The modes of procedure for attachment of immovable property
initiates or starts with issuing a prohibitory order to the debtor and the public generally,
this order will prevent the judgment-debtor from transferring the property to himself or
anyone else or charging it. The judgment debtor shall attend the court on the date decided
for deciding the terms of the proclamation of sale. Normally for immovable property, two
copies of prohibitory orders are sufficient. But where the land is such that the revenue
accrued from it is paid to the government, three copies of prohibitory order is prepared. In
order to make the attachment lawful, the particulars given in the schedule attached with
the order should be matched to be exactly the same with the details given in the schedules
of the property given in warrant.

Furthermore, the warrant and the prohibitory orders along with the copies shall be
submitted to the Nazir. The Nazir will then endorse the warrant and return it within a
defined time before the Court. Where any person delegated by the Nazir completes the
above-mentioned work of attachment of property, a separate document stating how the
day and hour at which he did such an act has to be properly attached.

Warrant of Attachment of Land.Drum Beating charges- Any customary or usual practice

will be carried out for proclamation of the order, and the copy of it will be affixed on a
conspicuous part of the property as well as on the court. After this, the reader has to
record a note stating the fact that all the required formalities dictated by law to be
followed have been complied with. The presiding officer will then take charge of
ensuring its truthfulness. The court also has the obligation to make sure that all the
 requirements or formalities for a legal attachment have complied with in order to prevent
any sort of material irregularity as it might cause serious trouble and loss to the parties.
The civil courts should also apply proper caution and care in the process of service of
warrants of attachment before they take any action concerning the property.

When the property is movable property, which is not agricultural produce, then the
attaching officer can seize the property and keep it in his custody. But on the other hand if
the property seized is of a perishable nature or the cost of keeping it is likely to exceed its
value the attaching officer can sell it immediately. If the attachment officer fails to sell
such property by applying every means, he can at the instance of judgment-debtor or
decree-holder or anyone having an interest in such property leave it in the custody of a
respectable person in the village or place where it has been attached. The custodian will
later be can be made liable for the inability to produce such property before the court, or
for any loss or damage caused to it.

When the property is agricultural produce, a copy of the warrant of attachment can be
affixed on the land on which such crops are grown, or where the produce has been cut or
gathered, or on the threshing treading floor or fodder-stack.

Where the property to be attached is a negotiable interest which is not within the custody
of a public officer, or deposited in the court, the process of attachment can be carried out
through actual seizure.

Structure of Section 60 CPC, 1908

Section 60 of the CPC, 1908 lays down a list of properties that are to be liable for attachment and
sale in the execution of a decree. As have been discussed previously, the properties are:

1. Lands,
2. Houses or other buildings,
3. Goods,
4. Money,
5. Bank-notes,
6. Cheques,
7. Bills of exchange,
8. Hundis,
9. Promissory notes,
10. Government securities,
11. Bonds or other securities for money,
12. Debts,
 13. Shares in a corporation.
14. All other saleable property, whether movable or immovable, that belongs to the
judgement debtor or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power that
he may exercise for his own benefit, regardless of whether the property is held in the
judgement debtor’s name or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf.

Followed by this, Section 60 of CPC, 1908 also lays down a list of items that shall not be liable
to the above-mentioned attachment or sale. The same has been discussed in the heading below.

Items not eligible for attachment or sale under Section

60 CPC, 1908
1. The essential clothing, cooking utensils, beds and bedding of the judgement debtor, his
wife, and children, as well as any personal adornment that, according to religious
custom, no lady should be allowed to part with.
2. Tools of artisans, and, if the judgement debtor is an agriculturalist, his implements of
husbandry, such cattle and seed-grain as may, in the court’s opinion, be necessary to
enable him to earn his living as such, as well as a such portion of agricultural produce
or of any class of agricultural products that may have been declared to be exempt from
liability under the provisions of the section that follows this one.
3. Books of account.
4. Dwellings and other structures belonging to an agriculturist or a labourer of a domestic
worker and occupied by him, along with the materials, sites, and land directly adjacent
to and necessary for their enjoyment.
5. A mere right to sue for damages.
6. Political pensions, as well as stipends and gratuities permitted to pensioners of the
government, a local government, or any other employer, or due from any service
family pension fund thus announced in the Official Gazette by the Central
Government or the state government;
7. The salary for domestic workers and labourers, whether it is payable in cash or in
kind;
8. Salary in the execution of any decree, excluding a decree for maintenance, up to the
first 1,000 rupees and two-thirds of the remaining amount.
9. The salaries and benefits of individuals are covered by the Air Force Act of 1950, the
Army Act of 1950, or the Navy Act of 1957.
10. The Provident Funds Act of 1925 currently applies to all mandatory deposits and
other sums in or derived from funds, insofar as those monies are proclaimed by the
aforementioned Act to be exempt from attachment.
11. Any sums due under a life insurance policy on the judgement debtor;
 12. The interest of a lessee of a residential structure to whom the requirements of the law
relating to the management of rents and accommodations are now applicable;
13. Any allowance included in the pay of any government employee, an employee of a
railroad, or employee of a municipal government that the appropriate government has
declared free from attachment, as well as any subsistence grant or allowance given to
that employee while they are on suspension.
14. Any right of personal service.
15. A hope for succession through survivor’s rights or another merely hypothetical or
potential right or interest;
16. A claim to maintenance in the future;
17. Any allowance determined to be exempt from attachment or sale in fulfilment of a
decree by any Indian legislation, and
18. Any movable property that is exempt from payment of land revenue under any current
law that applies to the judgement debtor is not considered to be part of that obligation.
19. Sale in order to make up for revenue arrears.

Explanations provided to Section 60 CPC, 1908

Section 60 of the CPC, 1908 provides 6 explanations, which have been explained in simple terms
hereunder:

1. Before or after they are actually paid, the funds related to the items listed in clauses
(g), (h), I (ia), (j), (l), and (o) are exempt from attachment or sale, and, in the case of
salary, the attachable component thereof is subject to attachment before or after it is
actually paid.
2. In Sections I and (ia), “salary” refers to the whole monthly emoluments received by a
person from his employment, whether on duty or on leave, except any allowance
designated exempt from attachment under the rules of clause (1).
3. “Appropriate Government” in paragraph (1) means:
1. With regard to any employee of the Central Government, any employee of the railway
administration, the cantonment authority, or the port authority of a major port;
2. In regards to any additional government employees or employees of any other local
authorities, the state government.
4. The terms “wages” and “labourer” both refer to skilled, unskilled or semi-skilled
labourers for the purposes of this proviso.
5. For the purposes of this proviso, an “agriculturist” is a person who personally
cultivates land and who relies heavily on the revenue from agricultural land, whether
as an owner, tenant, partner or agricultural labourer, in order to make ends meet.
6. An agriculturalist will be considered to personally cultivate the land for the purposes
of Explanation V if he cultivates land—
1. Through his own work, or
 2. Through the labour of any family member, or
3. By employees who are paid in cash, in kind (rather than as a part of the produce), or
both, as servants or labourers.

An agreement by which a person undertakes to forfeit the advantage of any exemption under this
Section shall be void, regardless of anything else stated in any other legislation currently in
effect. Nothing in this section shall be construed as releasing from attachment or sale in
fulfilment of decrees for rent any such dwelling, building, site, or property, including the
materials therein and the sites thereof and the lands immediately appurtenant thereto and
necessary for their use.

Key Exemptions Under Section 60 of the CPC

Section 60 of the CPC outlines the properties that are exempt from
attachment and sale in execution of a decree. The relevant exemptions
include:
1. Salary:
2. The first ₹1,000 of salary and two-thirds of the remainder are
exempt from attachment in execution of any decree other than
for maintenance Sreeja V VS P G Sharma - KeralaRamadasu
Krishna Murthy VS Katla Vijayalaxmi - Andhra Pradesh.
3. If a portion of the salary has been under attachment for a total of
24 months, it becomes exempt from further attachment for an
additional 12 months, and after 24 months of continuous
attachment, it is finally exempt from that decree Pappachan VS
Oriental Kuries Ltd. - KeralaShaik Noorjahan VS M. Rajeswari
- Andhra Pradesh.
4. Residential House:
5. A residential house is exempt from attachment under Section
60(1)(ccc) of the CPC, provided it is the dwelling place of the
judgment-debtor Jiwan Parkash Aggarwal VS Kay Timber
Traders - Punjab and HaryanaSheela Rani VS Punjab And Sind
Bank Ltd. - Punjab and Haryana.
6. Pensions:
 7. Pensions are also exempt from attachment in execution of a
money decree VASANTHI DEVI VS VIJAYA BANK,
ASHOK NAGAR BRANCH, MANGALORE - Karnataka.
8. Enemy Property:
9. Properties vested in the Custodian as enemy property are
exempt from attachment, seizure, or sale in execution of a
decree Union of India VS Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad
Khan - Supreme Court.
10. Specific Provisions for Agricultural Tenants:
11. Under Section 168A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, certain
properties of judgment-debtors are exempt from attachment in
execution of decrees for arrears of rent AMULYA CHANDRA
ROY VS PASHUPATI NATH - Calcutta.

Limitations and Exceptions

● The exemptions apply specifically to the judgment-debtor and
do not extend to legal representatives or heirs Sheela Rani VS
Punjab And Sind Bank Ltd. - Punjab and Haryana.
● The date of attachment is critical; if a law confers exemption on
a property after the decree but before attachment, that property
cannot be attached Sheo Baran Singh VS Mohan Lal Driver -
Allahabad.

All you need to know

about property liable to
attachment and sale in
execution of decree
A clause (kb) was added to Section 60(1) of the CPC in the year 1973 on the recommendation of
the 54th Law Commission Report, which states that “property subject to attachment and sale in
execution of the decree.” This clause exempted “all money payable under a policy of insurance
on the life of the judgement-debtor” from attachment in the proceedings for the execution of the
decree. The explanation under Section 60(1) of CPC further explains that the amounts payable in
relation to the matters mentioned in clauses (g), (h), I (ia), (j), (l), and (o) are exempted from
attachment or sale, whether before or after they are actually payable. In the case of salary, the
attachable portion thereof is subject to attachment whether before or after it is actually payable.

The aforementioned explanation makes it clear that pension payments made to government
employees or political pensions, wages paid to domestic workers and labourers, the first INR
1,000 of a salary or the remaining two-thirds of a salary, allowances for members of the armed
forces or the air force, etc., covered by clauses (g), (h), I (ia), and (l) of Section 60(1) of CPC,
regardless of whether they are payable or paid, are kept outside the list of assets that can be
attached by the court executing the decree against the judgement-debtor.

Judicial decisions on
property liable to
attachment and sale in
execution of the decree
 1. In Parasram H. Bhojwani v. Pravinchand Sehgal (2021), the Bombay High Court
adopted an intriguing stance regarding the question of whether the sum of money paid
to the judgement-debtor during his lifetime under the life insurance policy on the life
can be attached under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in order to satisfy
a decree that is still pending against the said judgement-debtor.
2. In Federal Bank Ltd. v. Indiradevi Kunjamma (1984), a similar Section 60 CPC
problem involving the attachment of funds paid under a life insurance policy to the
judgement-debtors’ lawful heirs was brought before the Bombay High Court in 1984.
The Bombay High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Sarbati
Devi v. Usha Devi (1983), in which to assert that it is no longer conceivable to retain
the belief that funds payable under an insurance policy do not form a part of the
decedent’s estate, the highest court of appeal considered it as a subject of attachment.

The money payable or paid under the life insurance policy in the possession of the lawful heirs
of the deceased judgement-debtor, however, was not subject to attachment by the Bombay High
Court, who instead extended the protection granted by clause (kb) of Section 60(1) CPC. In order
to provide some security to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased judgement-debtor,
the Bombay High Court reasoned that the legislature intended to exempt from attachment the
funds payable under a policy of insurance on the life of the judgement-debtor by enacting clause
(kb) of Section 60(1) CPC.

Given this circumstance, the exemption outlined in clause (kb) of Section 60(1) CPC applies to
the same funds even though they are gradually becoming a part of the decedent’s estate. Due to
the aforementioned clause (kb) of Section 60(1) CPC, funds payable under an insurance policy
on the life of a judgement-debtor are completely exempt from attachment and sale regardless of
whether the insurance policy matures during the assured’s lifetime or the funds become due after
his death.

In the case of Parasram H. Bhojwani v. Pravinchand Sehgal (2021), the Bombay High Court
cited its own decision in Federal Bank (1984) and reasoned that it was rendered in connection to
a dispute where the issue concerned the attachment of the judgement-life debtor’s insurance
policy beyond its lifetime. The Court stated that clause (kb) of Section 60(1) CPC completely
exempts the proceeds of an insurance policy on the life of a judgement debtor from attachment
and sale, regardless of whether the insurance policy matures during the assured’s lifetime or the
proceeds become due after his death.

The Bombay High Court noted the differences between the facts of the Federal Bank case and
the Parasram H. Bhojwani case, stating that the fact in the latter related to the payment of the
money upon policy maturity during the insured person’s lifetime, whereas the issue in the former
was limited to the payment of the life insurance policy upon the insured person’s death. The
Court is, therefore, inclined to consider the facts of the case of Parasram H. Bhojwani when
determining whether clause (kb) of Section 60 CPC is applicable.

Unquestionably, the Court recognised the Federal Bank ruling, implying that the purpose was
always that any future amounts due, including insurance policies, could not be attached because
the beneficiaries of an insured person’s death are their heirs. The Court cited the explanation
provided under Section 60 CPC in stating that the items mentioned in clauses (g), (h), I (ia), (j),
(l), and (o) of the provisions are exempted from attachment regardless of whether the amount is
paid before or after the explanation’s reference.

3. In the case of Canara Bank v. N. Palani (1995), the parties went before the Madras
High Court to appeal the lower court’s decision to allow attachment of the fixed
deposit receipt containing the funds received from the deceased judgement debtor’s
life insurance policy. They argued that this was illegal under Section 60 CPC’s clause
(kb), which states that the funds payable under a life insurance policy cannot be
attached to carry out a judgement.

According to the Madras High Court, the term “due,” with regard to the protection provided by
clause (kb) of Section 60 CPC, can no longer be extended to money once the policy matures and
it has been paid as long as it still has the character of being payable under a life insurance policy.
The Madras High Court took the decision in the Federal Bank case under consideration but
determined that it would not apply in this case because the issue in the Federal Bank case
concerned the attachment of money payable under an insurance policy, whereas the issue in the
current case relates to the attachment of a fixed deposit receipt.

Referring to the case of Sebastian Jose v. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. (2009), the Madras High
Court in the present case held that so long as money is received as amounts payable under life
insurance, it is protected by clause (kb) when received by the policyholder while he is still alive.
However, when money is received by the policyholder’s legal representative after his death, it
becomes his estate and is subject to attachment.

4. In Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank (2008) and Union of India v. Wing
Commander R.R. Hingorani (1997), the Supreme Court held that the money is
protected from attachment under Section 60 CPC as long as it retains the character of a
pensionary benefit converted into a fixed deposit. Using the same reasoning in the
case of insurance policies, the Apex Court observed that the exemption under clause
(kb) will only be effective as long as the amount is still in the pensionary benefit. Once
received, the sum would no longer be considered “payable,” eliminating the possibility
of exemption.
If the policy matures within the insured’s lifetime, the funds would no longer be protected by
Section 60(1)(kb) of CPC, 1908 after the insurance firm has paid the maturity value and
distributed the assets. The safe confines of provident funds, pensions, and required deposits,
which are highlighted in the explanation to Section 60 CPC, do not include payments received at
the maturity of a life insurance policy. As the Federal Bank’s judgement did not take the
explanation to Section 60(1) of the Code into account, the aforementioned decision stands out.

5. In the case of Pulugu Karnakar Reddy v. Shreya Financiers and Hire Purchase
(2006), a party challenged the lower court’s ruling attaching the sum payable under
the life insurance policy to the legal heirs of the deceased judgement-debtor, before
the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Referring to the 54th Law Commission Report, the
Court noted that the main goal of enacting clause (kb) of Section 60 is to encourage
thrift and the habit of owning a life insurance policy. However, in order to take a
liberal stance, an exemption for life insurance policies is required. Taking into
consideration the Federal Bank Ltd. ruling from the Bombay High Court, an exception
was made under clause (kb) of Section 60 for the non-attachment of the money
payable under the insurance policy and therefore the Andhra Pradesh High Court
acknowledged that the legislative objective was to offer exemption to the insurance
policy.
6. In the case of V.P. Arora v. Punjab National Bank (1991), one OP Arora was the
subject of a judgement which made him liable for payment, and his son VP Arora
served as a judgement debtor and guarantor. OP Arora passed away; his execution was
carried out, and his primary residence was attached. Shanti Devi, the wife of OP
Arora, along with VP Arora were listed as legal representatives. Shanti Devi submitted
objections invoking the defence provided by Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC, 1908.
Shanti Devi left VP Arora the benefit of her bequest when she passed away.

The home that had previously belonged to OP Arora was afterwards acquired by VP Arora. It is
important to note that VP Arora participated in the proceedings as a judgement debtor. The
division bench of the Delhi High Court was asked to decide whether the judgement debtor could
take advantage of proviso (ccc) of Section 60(1) of the CPC, 1908 if he acquired ownership of a
home after a decree or attachment and it happened to be his primary residence.

When deciding what would happen to the suit property, the Court considered the facts of the
case, the relevant provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 that applied following the death
of OP Arora, and proviso (ccc) of Section 60(1) of CPC. The Court concluded its ruling by
holding, “It barely matters if he held the house when the decree was enacted or acquired
ownership of it after it was sought to be sold or attached. For this reason, the phrase “or” was
used by the law’s drafters between attachment and sale.” In the end, the Court had determined
that VP Arora must remain a judgement debtor and continue to own the property as his primary
residence before it may be sold.
 7. In the matter of Bomminayana Nirmala v. Rachapathu Krishnamurthy (2010), the
Andhra Pradesh High Court was entrusted with interpreting the validity of clause (kb)
of Section 60 CPC, 1908 for the attachment of money payable under the insurance
policy. In this instance, a creditor sued the legal heirs of the judgement debtor who
passed away prior to the filing of the suit in order to reclaim the debt. A judgement
was rendered against the legal heirs, and the Court enforcing the judgement mandated
the attachment of the sum due to the legal heirs under the dead debtor’s life insurance
policy.

The party filed a revision petition in opposition to the executing court’s order attaching funds
due under the insurance policy. The Court determined that the sum payable under the insurance
policy on the life of the deceased debtor is free from attachment for any amount due by the
insured under clause (kb) of Section 60 CPC by referring to the judgement in the Federal Bank
case. Therefore, under Section 60 CPC, the insurance amount is immune from attachment
before judgement by the executing court if the lawsuit was brought against the legal heirs as the
policy successors.

Conclusion
The properties exempt from attachment in execution of a decree under the
CPC include salary (up to specified limits), residential houses, pensions,
and enemy properties. These exemptions are designed to protect the
essential living conditions and financial stability of judgment-debtors.
Legal representatives do not benefit from these exemptions, and the timing
of the attachment is crucial in determining the applicability of these
protections. Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, states that all properties that can
be sold are subject to attachment and sale in order to carry out the judgement. The property listed
therein is likewise free from attachment and sale during the execution of a decree, according to
the provision. As a general rule, all property, both movable and immovable, including shares of
companies, buildings, and agricultural land, as well as movable goods like cash and other items,
is considered to be property, owned by the judgement debtor, who has the exclusive right to hold
and process it.