VENKATESWARA AND COMPANY Vs. NALLAMIPALLI PEDDA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals can be disposed of by a common Judgment . since the points involved are common and the facts are also similar. Admittedly the Claimant - Respondent No. 1 in each of these appeals filed petitions under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. to raise the attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 8 C.P.C. Their claim is that K. Ramamurthy is the owner of the property, the subject matter of the Attachment. They have purchased under registered sale deeds the subject matter of attached property for valid consideration and therefore they are the owners and the property is not liable for attachment. The case of the appellants is that in the written statement filed by K. Veeraraju, the debtor is that himself his father Ramamurthy and another brother are members of the Joint family and it is a coparcenary property in which he had l/3rd share. This averment was made to claim the benefit of Act 7 of 1977. This clearly shows that Rama Murthy, the father of Veeraraju, the defendant in the suit, has no exclusive right, title and interest in the property sold to the claimants. On the other hand, the defendant had a subsisting interest in the land which was attached before judgment. The Court below has committed grievous error in raising the attachment relying upon the sale deeds executed by Ramamurthy. The sale deed under which the title was acquired by the first respondent in each case was admittedly executed by Ramamuthy. Ramamurthy is no other than the father of Veeraraju, the sole defendant in the suit. In the sale deeds there is an express reference made by Ramamurthy that he purchased these properties under earlier registered sale deeds from his vendors for valid consideration. So long as that recital it not found to be false, it goes without saying that it would be prima facie his self-acquired property, and whether the consideration was emanated from the joint family nucleus or not is entirely a different matter. Since it was purchased by third parties from R.W. 1 who is not a party to the suit and Ramamurthy having acquired title under separate sale deeds from his vendor, the finding recorded by the Court below that Ramamurthy is having title and the same title has been passed on under the sale deeds under which title was acquired by the claimants is a valid one and, therefore, the attachment cannot be affected on the properties belonging to the pre-decessor in-title of the claimants and the claimants under the sale deeds. Therefore, there is no error of law committed by the Court below in raising the attachment before Judgment.

(2.) THE appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.