SARIDE PULLAMMA Vs. SARIDI MADHURAM DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy- in this second appeal revolves round Order 38, Rules 6 and 8 read with Order 21, Rule 63 C. P. C., the question raised here being whether a suit is competent against an order upholding the objection of a claimant that the property in dispute belongs to her and not to the judgment-debtor.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal lie in a short compass and are not in dispute. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 257 of 1953, which has given rise to this appeal, filed O. S. No. 470 of 1952 against four persons on the foot of a promissory note executed by the first defendant therein, defendants 2 and 3 being his sons and defendant 4 being his sister, who is the 1st respondent in the second appeal.

(3.) The defence on behalf of the fourth defendant in O. S. No. 470 of 1952 was that she was not in any way liable as she was unconcerned with that debt.