THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.80 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against order dated 13-12-2000 passed in E.A.No.142 of 2000 in E.P.No.7 of 2000 in O.S.No.77 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, whereunder petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C., for raising attachment made in E.P.No.7 of 2000 in O.S.No.77 of 1996 with regard to the schedule property, was dismissed. 2. The appellant herein is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the application. 3. The petitioner is third party to O.S.No.77 of 1996 and also E.P.No.7 of 2000. The 2nd respondent herein, who is none other than the brother of the appellant, is the judgment debtor and the 1st respondent herein is the decree holder in E.P.No.7 of 2000 in O.S.No.77 of 1996 filed before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. As the 2nd respondent failed to discharge the loan amount obtained from the 1st respondent-Bank, the suit (O.S.No.77 of 1996) on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, was filed by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent herein for recovery of Rs.59,159-36 ps. with interest and costs, and it was decreed on 06.08.1999. Later, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.7 of 1999 in O.S.No.77 of 1996 for the attachment and sale of half share of the scheduled mentioned property, which is a house, for the realization of the decreetal amount on the ground that the same property was the joint family property of the 2nd respondent and he got half share thereof. The Court below, after detailed consideration of the matter, ordered for the attachment of the schedule mentioned property through order 31.01.2000. Whereas, the appellant filed the present E.A.No.142 of 2000 for raising the attachment made by the order dated 31.01.2000. 4. The petitioner filed the present application in which it is claimed that the E.P. schedule property is not their joint family property and that she is the exclusive owner and possessor of the said property, having obtained the same from her father by name Tavitanna, who died on 18.11.1995, by virtue of Ex.A1-Will dated 13.02.1994, and therefore, the property cannot be attached and sold. 5. The 1st respondent/decree-holder resisted the application denying the allegations made by the petitioner. 6. On the strength of the pleadings, the Court below framed the following points for consideration:- (1) Whether the Will dated 13.12.1994 is the last Will and testament of Sri Tavitanna? (2) If so, whether the petitioner is the absolute owner of the attached property? 7. On behalf of the petitioner, she (the petitioner) got herself examined as P.W.1 and one Pragada Venkata Ramaiah and Bora Ramakrishna got examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked and Ex.X1-death Certificate of one Bore Ellappa was marked. 8. After considering both the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below dismissed the application by order dated 13.12.2000. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 9. The point for consideration is whether the execution of the alleged Will dated 13.02.1994 is proved by the petitioner adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence? 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. At paragraph 8 of the impugned order, the Court below observed that as the evidence of P.W.2-P.V.Ramayya, claimed to have attested Ex.A1, was left without corroboration, the sole testimony of P.W.2 would not prove the execution of Ex.A1 that the so called Will had seen the light of the day only in the year 2000 even though claimed to be executed in the year 1993. Further, the Court below observed that the petitioner had occasions to produce Ex.A1 before Public Offices i.e., either at the time of mutation of her name in the property register or at the time of changing of her name in the electricity service connection, but P.W.1 herself admitted that she had not produced the Will before the Panchayat Office when she applied for the mutation of her name in respect of the schedule property in the property register. 12. I have gone through the record. I am of the considered opinion that the Court below, having properly examined the matter, rightly held that Ex.A1-Will was not established and I agree with the findings of the Court below. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 18th April, 2011 v v