Supreme Court of India· 14 August 2026

Is the exemption from attachment of a residential house under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure available to the legal representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor?

Sheela Gehlot v. Mohini Hardayal Singh & Ors

2026 INSC 863 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2016
Coram: Alok Aradhe; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Section 31, Recovery of Debts an…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No — Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code protects only a residential house belonging to and occupied by the judgment-debtor himself; the protection is personal to him and does not extend to his legal representatives, a view that has held the field in the Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts for thirty seven long years.

Headnote

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 — Section 31 — Section 29 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXI Rule 22 — Section 60(1)(ccc) — Income Tax Act, 1961 — Second Schedule — Auction sale — Exemption — Attachment — Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 — Section 31, Section 29 — Execution procedure after transfer to DRT — Held: Once execution is transferred to the DRT under the 1993 Act, its own procedure applies in supersession of the Code. Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code therefore has no impact on the validity of the auction sale. (¶37) Income Tax Act, 1961 — Second Schedule, Rule 2 and Rule 61 — Non-service of notice, substantial injury — Held further: Absence of notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule does not void a sale where the defaulter had actual knowledge of the proceeding. A sale is set aside under Rule 61 only on proof of substantial injury from non-service or irregularity. (¶39, 40) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 60(1)(ccc) — Exemption personal to judgment-debtor — Held further: The exemption of a main residential house from attachment under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code is personal to the judgment-debtor, not his legal representatives. The mixed question of law and fact cannot be raised for the first time in a writ petition. (¶43, 45) Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 — Auction sale — Remand set aside, appeals disposed — Held further: The High Court's remand for a fresh inquiry on these questions was therefore erroneous. The impugned judgment is set aside; the Auction-Purchaser's and the Bank's appeals are allowed, and the legal representative's appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. (¶47, 48)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 42Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code in its application to Delhi exempts attachment and sale of one main residential house belonging to judgment-debtor other than an agriculturist and occupied by him the protection is by its own text personal to the judgment debtor as it is confined to a house belonging to and occupied by the judgment debtor and this protection does not extend to legal representatives of judgment debtor.

Paragraph 43The Delhi High Court[^7] interpreting Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code has held that a legal representative is a distinct juridical concept from judgment debtor and liability devolving upon legal representative is limited to the estate in his hands and he cannot, merely by virtue of residing in a house which belonged to the deceased judgment debtor, claim personal exemption that Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code affords to a judgment-debtor alone. The same view has commended itself to the Punjab & Haryana High Court in two decisions[^8]. Thus, the plea of exemption under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code is personal to the judgment-debtor and is not available to be raised by his legal representatives.

Paragraph 44The view taken by the Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts about the interpretation of local amendment to Section 60(1) of the Code, namely Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code which is applicable to the State of Punjab, Haryana and Delhi has held the field for thirty seven long years. We find no good ground to differ with the view taken by the aforesaid High Courts. Therefore, the plea of exemption under Rule 10 of the Second Schedule read with Section 60(1)(ccc) of the Code is not available to respondent no. 1 and her children.

Acts & Sections

Section 31, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993Section 29, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993Section 22, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993Order XXI Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 60(1)(ccc), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961Rule 10 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961Section 35, Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Sheela Gehlot v. Mohini Hardayal Singh & Ors — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, does Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code apply to an auction sale after execution is transferred to the DRT?Under the Income Tax Act, 1961, does the absence of notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule void a sale where the defaulter already had knowledge of the execution proceeding?Can a mixed question of law and fact be raised for the first time in a writ petition if no factual foundation was laid before the original authority?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections