SATYAMSETTI SOMARAJU Vs. RAMISETTI NAIDU ALIAS VENKATA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against judgment dated 21-3-1994 in A.S. No. 19 of 1993 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram, confirming the order and decree dated 6-8-1993 in E.A. No. 104 of 1990 in E.P. No. 147 of 1989 in O.S. No. 52 of 1985 on the file of District Munsiff, Prathipadu. The claimant is the appellant.

(2.) Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : First respondent decree holder obtained a money decree against second respondentjudgment debtor. During the pendency of suit, the decree-holder attached before judgment some property said to be belonging to defendant-judgment debtor. The attachment was effected on 5-5-1985. Thereupon during the pendency of the suit itself the appellant filed I.A. No. 322 of 1985 under Order 38, Rule 8, C.P.C., seeking raising of attachment on the ground that the appellant is the owner of the said property, he purchased the said property under a regular registered sale deed dated 21-2-1985 and the second respondent judgment debtor had no interest or right over the said property. The said attachment raising petition in I.A. No. 322 of 1985 stood dismissed for default of appellant-claimant on 22-4-1986. Subsequently when the attached property was brought to sale, nearly four years after the date of attachment, the appellant filed an application in E.A. No. 104 of 1990 under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C., requesting the trial Court to raise the attachment in question. The claim application was contested by the first respondent-decree holder on various grounds. Both parties adduced evidence before Executing Court. It dismissed the claim application by its order 6-8-1993. The appellant preferred an appeal before Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram. The lower Appellate Court, on a consideration of various contentions raised before it, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the claim application. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

(3.) At the time of admission of this appeal, the learned admission Judge treated the following point formulated in the memorandum of grounds of appeal as substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the present appeal.