Statutory exemption from attachment cannot be waived, and a third party may challenge an illegal attachment order in execution.

A statutory exemption from attachment created on grounds of public policy cannot be waived by agreement, so a compromise decree directing deduction from a railway servant's exempt salary is unlawful and unenforceable to that extent. A decree based on such a waiver is vitiated and cannot support attachment of the protected salary. A third party directly affected by an attachment order may also move the executing court to challenge its legality, because the rule that an executing court does not go behind the decree does not bar a stranger to the decree from questioning an order served on him.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a third party served with an order of attachment could move the executing court to challenge the legality of the attachment order. (ii) Whether a compromise decree providing for deduction from the salary of a railway servant was invalid as contrary to the statutory exemption from attachment and therefore unenforceable.

Issue (i): Whether a third party served with an order of attachment could move the executing court to challenge the legality of the attachment order.

Analysis: The protection against attachment under the statutory exemption was not a merely personal privilege between the original decree-holder and judgment-debtor. A person not party to the decree, but directly affected by the attachment order, could invoke the court's inherent power to question an order that exposed him to liability under an allegedly illegal attachment. The rule that an executing court does not go behind the decree operated between parties to the decree and did not prevent a stranger to the decree from challenging an order served upon him.

Conclusion: The third-party applicant was entitled to maintain the application and question the legality of the attachment order.

Issue (ii): Whether a compromise decree providing for deduction from the salary of a railway servant was invalid as contrary to the statutory exemption from attachment and therefore unenforceable.

Analysis: The exemption protecting a railway servant's salary from attachment was based on public policy and could not be contracted away. An agreement by which the employee purported to waive that protection had an unlawful object and consideration, making the compromise void. A decree passed in terms of such an unlawful compromise was itself vitiated and could not be enforced by attachment of the exempt salary.

Conclusion: The compromise decree was unlawful and void to the extent it directed attachment of the exempt salary, and the attachment order was liable to be set aside in favour of the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The attachment order was held illegal, and the applicant succeeded in revision with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory exemption from attachment enacted on grounds of public policy cannot be waived by agreement, and a compromise decree founded on such a waiver is unenforceable; a third party affected by the order may challenge its legality in execution proceedings.

---