BURRA RAMESH Vs. KOPPISETTI VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment due to commonality of law and facts involved.

(2.) The 1st respondent had obtained one money decree in O.S. No. 322/80 and another money decree in O.S.No.334/80 against the 2nd respondent. He filed E.P. No. 14/88 in O.S.No.322/30 and E.P.No.15/88 in O.S.No.334/80. The house bearing Door No-4-15 and 4-15/A (old) and 4-13 (new) has been attached. The appellant, who is the son of the 2nd respondent judgment debtor, filed Objection 167/89 in E.P.14/88 and objection 171/89 in E.P.15/88 under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the attached house had fallen to his share in the mutual partition effected in the month of December, 1984 and evidenced by registered partition deed, Ex.A1, dated 30-4-1985 and from the date of the partition he has been in possession and enjoyment of the attached house and, therefore, it is not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decrees against his father. The decree holder - first respondent through his counter denied the claim of the appellant - objector alleging that, knowing fully that the suit then pending against the 2nd Respondent would be decreed, the appellant in collusion with father might have brought into existence the registered partition deed on 30-4-1985 with a view to defeat the claim of the 1st Respondent- decree holder. There was no need to partition the property on 30-4-1985 except with a view to avoid the payment of the debt. The alleged partition deed, Ex.A1, is a sham and collusive document which had been executed with a view to defraud and delay the realisation of the decretal amount. It is pleaded that, in the alternative, the appellant objector is obliged to discharge the debt because it is his pious obligation to do so. It is lastly pleaded that the judgment debtor-2nd Respondent has, through his son, the objector, filed the objection under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure to harass the 1st Respondent-decree holder and to delay the realisation of the decretal amount.

(3.) The Executing Court, on assessment of the evidence on record, taking the view that there was no need to partition the property between the judgment debtor and the objector and the document, Ex.A1, is a collusive document, which was executed to evade payment of the decretal amount, rejected the objection and dismissed E.A. 167/89 and E.A.171/89.