BHIKA Vs. TARACHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant and arises out of a suit filed under O. 21 R. 63 C. P. C.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that respondents No. 1 and 2, i. e. Tarachand and his son Mancharmal brought a suit against respondent No. 3 Baluda for recovery of Rs. 1700/ -. That suit was filed in the court of Sub Judge, Balotra on 28. 11. 48. In that suit, the plaintiffs prayed for attachment of the defendant's property before judgment under O. 38 R. 5 C. P. C. That application was allowed and on 1. 12. 49, 227 hides were attached from the possession of respondent No. 3. On 6-1. 50 Bhika (present appellant) filed an objection petition and challenged the validity of attachment on the ground that all the hides attached by the court belonged to him and that they were in. possession of respondent No. 3 only as his trustee as they were given to him for the purpose of tanning. Respondent No. 3 supported Bhika, while respondents Nos. 1 and 2 asserted that the property belonged to respondent No. 3. THE objection-petition was however allowed by the trial court on 6 4-53 and the property was released from attachment. THE plaintiffs filed a revision application, but they were not successful and hence they brought the present regular suit under O. 21 R. 63 C. P. C. It was stated by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the plaint that they had obtained a decree for Rs. 1800/- in their previous suit against Baluda, that the hides which they had got attached before judgment really belonged to Baluda, that Baluda had colluded with Bhika and falsely supported him in his objection in order to save his property and that the said property should be declared as belonging to Baluda and liable to attachment and sale in execution of the plaintiffs' decree. It is noteworthy that in his written statement filed by respondent Baluda this time, he supported the plaintiffs instead of Bhika and admitted that the objection-petition filed by Bhika was false and collusive and was presented only to save his property from attachment and sale. It was asserted by him that the hides which were attached from his possession belong to himself, that he had purchased that property from one Abdul Ghafoor and that he was producing with his written statement Abdul Ghafoor's letter together with a letter from the Bank of Jaipur, which he had received about the railway receipt which was sent to him through the Bank. He produced with his written, statement 3 documents which were marked by the trial court as Ex. D. 2-A, D. 2-B and D. 2 C.