V RAJAGOPALAN Vs. ERANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated 13-1-1994 passed by the Prl. Munsiff, Kolar.

(2.) By the order dated 15-1-1994, the learned Munsiff has, after hearing the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor's counsel, set aside the attachment order and refused the prayer of the decree-holder for attachment of land Sy. Nos. 98/1, 98/2, 115/3, 127/3 of Batrahalli Village. The learned Munsiff has further observed that, it is left open to the decree-holder to prove satisfactorily that such properties are joint family properties and J. Dr. has got undivided definite interest or to take any other modes of realisation. The decree-holder had moved the application for attachment, alleging that the said properties stood in the name of Nanjappa, father of J. Dr., were joint family properties and the J. Dr. has got 1/6th share and as such, it was prayed that the said properties be attached. On notice being issued to the J.Dr. the J. Dr. put in appearance and filed objections alleging that the application for attachment was not maintainable either in law or on facts. The J. Dr. alleged that he had no property and that, in the properties mentioned above, he had no share, instead the said properties belong to his father viz., Nanjappa. The learned Munsiff framed an issue whether the decree-holder has furnished sufficient grounds to believe that the properties mentioned by him as joint family properties and in which the J. Dr. has got 1/6th share or interest and whether the said properties are liable to be attached to the extent of 1/6th share. The learned Munsiff, after considering the matter in detail, took the view and recorded the finding that, even if the above-mentioned lands or properties are recorded in the name of Nanjappa, father of J. Dr. but there is no material placed on record to show or to establish that the said properties were purchased by Nanjappa out of the joint family funds or from the income of the joint family or that the J. Dr. had contributed anything in the acquisition of those properties. So, he held that there is no material evidence on record nor has anyone adduced orally or in the form of documents by the decree-holder and as such those properties belong to Nanjappa and the properties are all his self-acquired properties. Having recorded the above findings that the properties, which the applicants sought to be attached have not been proved to be the joint family properties of Nanjappa, there was no reason t attach those properties in execution of the decree against th respondent judgment debtor. Having recorded these findings the learned Munsiff has rejected the application of th decree-holder for attachment of the property bearing Nos. 98/1 98/2,115/3,127/3 of Batrahalli village.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the above-mentioned order date13-1-1994, the decree-holder has come up before this Court by filing this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The powers of this Court are circumscribed by the provisions of law and in the matters relating to civil proceedings, the revisional powers are circumscribed by the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under: