KAMMISETTI PERUMALLU Vs. INAGANTI KOTIREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal relates to the interpretation of Article 11 of the Indian Limitation Act. It was referred to a Bench by our learned brother, Venkatesam, J., as he thought that there was divergence of judicial opinion in this matter.

(2.) In order to appreciate the scope of this inquiry, it is necessary, to state the facts which lie in a very narrow compass. In execution of the decree obtained by the appellant against respondents 2 and 3 herein in O. S. No. 481 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Ongole, he attached the properties which are the subject matter of this appeal and which were mortgaged to the first respondent. The first respondent then intervened with E. A. No. 599 of 1952, a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 58 C. P. C.

(3.) The answer of the appellant to this petition was that the mortgage was a collusive transaction entered into between the claimant and the judgment-debtors with a view to defeat the creditors.