K T AFZAL KHAN Vs. KUNSETTY RAMESH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the revision petitioner assails the order dated 29.7.2004 passed by the learned 1 additional district judge, cuddapah, in s.r. No.4609/2004 in la. No.717/2004 and ia No.718/2004 in o.s. No. 12/2004. Under the impugned order, the learned judge held that the document in question dated 6.9.1997 was a family arrangement.

(2.) the facts germane in the context, which elucidate the baffling question about the nature of the document, need be set forth at the outset.

(3.) the revision petitioner filed the suit o.s. No. 12/2004 on the file of the senior civil judge, cuddapah, against the respondents herein for recovery of an amount of rs.7,74,767/-. According to him, he purchased the cinema hall of the fourth respondent in two moieties under two different sale deeds. The fact that the existence of tax arrears and the bank loan on the projector floated by the fourth respondent were concealed and not divulged to him at the time of the sale transaction; and that later the fourth respondent agreed to clear the arrears but failed to do so. He, therefore, was constrained to clear off the bank loan and pay the tax arrears to some extent to the department and for recovery of those amounts, he laid the suit. However, no relief was sought as against the respondents 1 to 3 herein who are defendants 2 to 4 and the brothers of the fourth respondent. Accompanying the suit, he filed a petition under order 38 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the c.p.c.') seeking attachment before judgment of the house property bearing No. 16/531, chinna chowk polam, cuddapah. When conditional attachment was ordered and effected, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a claim petition under order 38 Rule 8 of the cpc for raising the attachment on the premise that the house property in dispute which was allotted to the father of the respondents in the partition was later given to the respondents 1 to 3 in a family arrangement and evidencing the said arrangement the document dated 6.9.1997 came to be executed by the members of the family and, therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 had exclusive rights over the said house property.