The Supreme Court has held that the protection available under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), exempting one main residential house of a judgment-debtor from attachment and sale, is a personal protection available only to the judgment-debtor.
The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe has observed that the exemption does not pass on to the legal representatives merely because they continue to reside in the property.
The dispute arose from the financial liabilities of the petitioner, a company that had availed credit facilities from Punjab & Sind Bank. The company’s factory land, building, plant and machinery were secured in favour of the Bank, while the company’s directors had furnished personal guarantees.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
The residential property however, had not originally been mortgaged for the company’s loan. Subsequently, under a compromise decree dated October 15, 1991, the title deeds relating to the Delhi property, which had been furnished as collateral security by the judgment-debtor, were to be released. The compromise expressly clarified that release of the title deeds would not affect the judgment-debtor’s personal liability towards the decretal amount.
The judgment-debtor subsequently died on November 17, 1994. After defaults under the compromise arrangement, the Bank initiated execution proceedings in which his widow and children were impleaded as judgment-debtors. After the proceedings were transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the Recovery Officer ordered the auction of the Delhi property.
The Delhi property was put to auction pursuant to the recovery proceedings. An auction was held on November 27, 2006, and the bid of the auction-purchaser was accepted. The sale was subsequently confirmed and a sale certificate was issued on March 1, 2007.
The judgment-debtor’s widow challenged the recovery proceedings and the proposed sale at various stages. Among other objections, she contended that the property was her residential house and was protected from attachment under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC.
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal initially rejected her challenge, holding, among other things, that the exemption had neither been pleaded nor established before the Recovery Officer and that the DRT had jurisdiction to proceed with the sale.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court took a different view. It held that the omission of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC and the corresponding provision under the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act was not merely an irregularity but a defect affecting the execution proceedings.
The High Court consequently set aside the DRAT’s order and remitted the matter to the DRT for a fresh inquiry into whether the legal representatives had suffered substantial prejudice due to non-service of notice and whether the Delhi property was entitled to exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC.
The auction-purchaser and Punjab & Sind Bank challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court identified three principal questions:
- Whether non-compliance with Order XXI Rule 22 CPC affected the auction sale;
- Whether failure to serve notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 rendered the execution or sale void; and
- Whether the Delhi property was protected from attachment under Rule 10 of the Second Schedule read with Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC.
The Court considered these questions in the context of the special recovery mechanism under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that Order XXI Rule 22 CPC contains a mandatory requirement to issue notice in specified circumstances, including execution proceedings against legal representatives of a judgment-debtor.
However, the Court noted that the execution proceedings in the present case were initially pursued before the Morena Court and subsequently transferred to the DRT following the establishment of the DRT under the 1993 Act.
Once the proceedings were transferred, the Recovery Officer was required to follow the recovery mechanism under Section 29 of the 1993 Act read with the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, rather than continue applying the ordinary execution procedure under the CPC.
The Court further observed that the Morena Court had made repeated attempts over more than two years to serve notices upon the widow and children. In the circumstances, even if the execution proceedings had continued before that court, the failure to issue the notice contemplated by Order XXI Rule 22 would have constituted an irregularity rather than a jurisdictional defect.
The Supreme Court therefore concluded that Order XXI Rule 22 CPC had no impact on the validity of the auction sale conducted under the 1993 Act.
The Court next examined Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, which requires service of a notice upon the defaulter before recovery proceedings are undertaken.
The Supreme Court recognised that the provision incorporates principles of natural justice. At the same time, it pointed out that Rule 61 of the Second Schedule provides a specific remedy where an immovable property has been sold without proper notice or where there has been a material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale.
Such an application must be made within 30 days and the sale can be set aside only where the applicant establishes substantial injury resulting from the non-service or irregularity.
In the present case, although the Court accepted that no notice under Rule 2 had actually been served upon the widow and her children, it found that they were already parties to the execution proceedings and had knowledge of the recovery proceedings.
The widow had herself approached the DRT seeking release of the original title deeds and had specifically referred to the pendency of the execution proceedings. She had also filed an application seeking recall of the order directing auction of the property.
Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no question of substantial injury caused by the absence of the formal notice. The legal representatives had also failed to invoke the specific remedy under Rule 61 after the sale.
The Court therefore ruled that non-service of the Rule 2 notice did not render either the execution proceedings or the auction sale void.
The most significant aspect of the judgment concerns the interpretation of Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC.
The provision protects from attachment and sale one main residential house and buildings attached to it belonging to a judgment-debtor and occupied by him, subject to the statutory exception concerning property specifically charged with the debt.
The Supreme Court emphasised the wording of the provision and held that the exemption is personal to the judgment-debtor.
According to the Court, the protection is confined to a residential house that both belongs to and is occupied by the judgment-debtor. It does not extend to the legal representatives after the judgment-debtor’s death.
The Court relied upon the consistent interpretation adopted by the Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court, under which a legal representative is a distinct juridical person from the judgment-debtor. A legal representative’s liability is limited to the estate inherited from the deceased and residence in the property does not confer the personal statutory exemption available to the judgment-debtor.
The Supreme Court noted that the interpretation adopted by the Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts had held the field for 37 years.
Finding no reason to depart from that established position, the Court held that the exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) could not be invoked by the widow and children as legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor.
This ruling makes clear that inheritance or continued occupation of a residential property does not, by itself, transfer the statutory protection attached personally to the judgment-debtor.
The Supreme Court also found an additional difficulty with the legal representatives’ claim.
The Court noted that the plea under Section 60(1)(ccc) had not been raised before the Recovery Officer when the widow initially challenged the auction proceedings. Nor had it been raised in her earlier proceedings before the DRT and in the relevant appeal and writ proceedings.
The Supreme Court reiterated that while a pure question of law can generally be raised at any stage, a mixed question of law and fact requiring factual investigation cannot ordinarily be introduced for the first time in a writ petition without a factual foundation.
The High Court therefore erred in remitting the matter to the DRT to conduct a fresh factual inquiry into the exemption claim.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: How to Invest in Stock Market and Earn Money Online?
