MEERA ARYA Vs. LEELA NAGRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise from a proceedings in suit o. s. No. 6317 of 1997 on the file of the 7th additional civil judge,bangalore. The plaintiff is the appellant. Mr. B. n. dayanand, learned counsel who was appearing for the defendants submits that he takes notice fo th 5 respondents and will file power within two weeks. On this basis he agrees that the appeals may be heard and disposed of finally.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for this disposal are as follows: the suit is one for recovery of money. Along with the plain, i. a. 1 was filed by the plaintiff seeking attachment of properties scheduled as schedules a and b properties belonging to the defendant before judgment. interim attachment was granted. Defendants appeared and filed an la. To vacate the attachment. Later on the said i. a. filed to vacate the interim attachment was dismissed as not pressed. After dismissal of that i. a. , defendants filed yet another application offering his sister's property as property for attachment in substitution of schedules a and b properties. The reason given was that the defendants intended to develop the schedules a and b properties and any attachment would cause difficulties for them in his venture. This application was objected by the plaintiff alleging that there is nothing on record to show what is the title and interest of the sister over the property to offer the said property as security and that even if there be the value of the property is less. It was also pleaded by them that the value of the property is hardly Rs. 5,00,000-00 whereas the plaint claim itself is more than Rs. 15 lakhs. The plaintiff also contended that the sister's property cannot be offered as security. The court below vacated the attachment order and dismissed the application of the plaintiff for attachment before judgement. it further allowed the application filed by the defendant offering alternative property as security observing further that the question of right of the sister to offer the property as security and the value of the property, etc. , will be gone into at the final stage of litigation. Aggrieved by these orders, the plaintiff has come up in appeal.

(3.) M. F. A. No. 2837 of 1999 has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dismissing the application for attachment. M. f. a No. 2542 of 1999 is against the order allowing the application accepting alternative property as security.