THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.1198 of 2009 Date:16th December, 2009 Between: Sayyed Meera Bi @ Shaik Meera Bi …Appellant and 1. Shaik Rahamattisa Begum @ Rahatunnisa Begum & Anr. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.1198 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008 passed in A.S.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, whereby and where under the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the appeal setting aside the decree and order dated 30.06.2006 passed in E.A.No.9 of 2004 in E.A.No.579 of 2003 in E.P.No.71 of 2001 in O.S.No.363 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. 2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this Second Appeal by the claimant in E.A.No.9 of 2004 are: Shaik Rahamuttisa Begam @ Rahatunnisa Begam filed a suit being O.S.No.363 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, for recovery of money. She also got the attachment of property before judgment on 12.11.1999 vide I.A.No.1030 of 1999 in O.S.No.363 of 1999. The suit ended in decree. The decree-holder filed E.P.No.71 of 2001 and sought for sale of the attached property for realization of the amount. The property was auctioned and the decree-holder became the highest bidder and sale has been knocked down in her favour. Subsequently, Sayyad Meerabi @ Shaik Merabi filed claim petition alleging that the attached property has been gift to her on 07.04.1997 and since then she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. She also filed E.A.No.9 of 2004 to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rules 97 and 99 CPC. The said application has been resisted by the decree-holder/auction purchaser. On behalf of the claimant, she got herself examined as PW.1 and examined two more witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. On behalf of the decree-holder/auction purchasers, she got herself examined as RW.1. The Executing court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the application filed by the claimant, by order dated 30.06.2006. The decree- holder/auction purchaser carried the matter in appeal by filing A.S.No.45 of 2006. The lower appellate Court, on re-appraisal of the evidence and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the appeal by setting aside the order dated 30.06.2006 passed in E.A.No.9 of 2004 in E.A.No.579 of 2003 in E.P.No.71 of 2001 in O.S.No.363 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala and consequently, E.A.No.9 of 2004 filed by the claimant ended in dismissal. The judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.45 of 2006 is under challenge in this Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the lower appellate Court has grossly erred in reversing the findings recorded by the Executing Court and therefore, the Second Appeal deserves to be admitted and necessary interim relief is required to be granted in favour of the appellant. 5. As seen from the material brought on record, the appellant/claimant claimed the property, which has been attached on 12.11.1999 in IA No.1030 of 1999 in O.S.No.363 of 1999 basing on a oral gift said to have been made by the judgment debtor. It is a matter of record that the judgment debtor is no other than the father of the claimant. Except the oral assertion of the claimant with regard to the gifting of the attached property to her, no piece of paper has been placed on record to substantiate the same. The appellant/claimant did not choose to produce any document evidencing her possession pursuant to the alleged oral gift. The lower appellate Court has dealt the matter very meticulously and proceeded to allow the appeal. I do not see any flaw in the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court. There is no substantial question of law required to be adjudicated in this Second Appeal. 6. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:16th December, 2009. cs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.1198 of 2009 Date:16th December, 2009