ADIVI LAKSHMIKANTHAMMA Vs. AKISETTI RANGANAYAKULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of the appellant before us obtained a decree against a tenant for rent. He obtained an attachment before judgment and after the decree, his legal representative, the appellant was attempting to execute the decree-against the property attached. The respondent who claimed the attached property under two sale deeds, (1) from the judgment debtor to his wife and the 2nd from the wife to himself- filed a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58. The petition was enquired into by the District Munsif of Bhimavaram. In the order he says: for the purpose of this petition, we art concerned only with the prima facie nature of the case.

(2.) This shows that he considered the matter as one falling under Order 21 Rule 58 Civil P.C.

(3.) The appellant then filed appeal to the District Court of Masulipatam. Ordinarily appeals lie from Bhimavaram to Sub-Court, Narasapur. The appeal to District Court was attempted to be justified on the ground that it was an appeal under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act though Section 47, Civil P.C. was the section originally quoted and that the Munsifa order was under Section 4 of the Act. Though the Munsif was requested to inquire into the matter under that section he declined to do so. The District Judge held that there was no appeal under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The appeal was then presented to Subordinate Judge's Court of Narasapur as one under Section 47,. Civil P.C. out of time. The Subordinate Judge dismissed it as barred by limitation. Hence this second appeal.