BHAGAVATHULA KAMESWARA RAO Vs. DODDAKU VEERA RAGHAVULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in this second appeal is whether a sale deed executed in favour of the claimant before the attachment but registered later than the attachment can prevail.

(2.) The facts leading to the second appeal briefly are: The plaintiff is the appellant herein who obtained a decree on 22-2-1951 in O. S. No. 78 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsifs court, Masulipatam, on the foot of a promissory note executed on 10-12-1948 by the 2nd defendant in his favour and in Execution Petition No. 104 of 1951 the suit properties were attached on 30-3-1951. The 1st defendant claimed these properties by virtue of a sale deed executed by the second defendant in his favour on 24-1-1951 (Ex.B.2), but it was registered on 2-4-1951 i.e., on a date subsequent to the attachment. As the claim of the 1st defendant was allowed, the plaintiff filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises. Both the lower courts held that the registration of Ex. B. 2 subsequent to the attachment does not affect the rights of the first defendant under the purchase, and the reason for this as stated by the lower courts is that the registration of the sale deed relates back to the date of execution.

(3.) Mr. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that Exs. B. 3 to B. 6 which the first defendant relied upon to prove that there was consideration for the suit sale deed Ex. B-2. were not proved by calling in the persons who executed those vouchers. But they are admittedly in favour of the 1st defendant who examined himself as D. W. 1. These documents were spoken to by the 1st defendant though they are in true name of the 2nd defendant. The payments having been made from out of the sale consideration of Ex. B. 2, and the evidence of the 1st defendant who deposed as D.W. 1 having been believed by both the courts, it cannot, in the circumstances be said that the payments towards these debts of the second defendant have not been made out. The concurrent findings of the lower courts on this aspect of the case therefore, in my view, are unassailable,