K MALLAMMA Vs. SAMMUEL SHANKRIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad dated 10th July, 1964. The short question for my consideration is whether it is Article 166 of the Limtation Act which is applicable to the facts of the case or whether it is Article 181 which applies.

(2.) In order to determine this question, it is necessary to keep in view the facts of the case. An ex parte decree was obtained against the assets of Ramaswr.my on 24th August, 1961. The respondent-decree-holder filed E.P. No. 68 of 1961 and a house was attached and was brought to sale. The judgment-debtor, that is, the wife of Ramaswamy the deceased, filed an application under section 47, Civil Procedure Code, claiming that the house attached and sold belongs to her and that it is not the asset of Ramaswamy in her hands. In support of her application she filed a registered sale deed of 1337 Fasli. The trial Court, without making any enquiry, found that the application is governed by Article 166 of the Limitation Act and held that the petition is time barred. The appellate Court took the same view.

(3.) Evidently, the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramanna v. Ndlaparaju, was not brought to the notice of the lower Courts : otherwise the view which they took would not have been taken. It is now firmly held in that case that, where a judgment-debtor filed an application on the ground that the property Lelongs to her and that the sale is void, it is Article 181 which applies to such a case and not Article 166. Following the said Supreme Court decision, therefore, I hold that the present case is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act. The petition is, therefore, in time.