THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD A.S.NO.4162 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad} This appeal arises out of the order dated 02.08.2004 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, in E.A.No.37 of 2002 in E.P.No.36 of 2001. The appellant herein is the claimant and she has filed the present petition under Order XXI Rules 58 and 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for release of the petition schedule property, which was attached in E.P.No.36 of 2001. The claim of the appellant is that the said property was purchased by her under Ex.A9 dated 17.07.1991 from out of the sale proceedings received by her under Ex.A8 dated 20.04.1987 and according to her, the said property was purchased by her out of “Stri Dhana” given to her at the time of her marriage. Admittedly, the said petition schedule property was attached by the first respondent in E.P.No.36 of 2001 in execution of arbitration proceedings initiated against the second respondent, who is her husband. The main contention of the appellant is that the said property is her self-acquired property and cannot be attached. In support of her contention, she examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined her mother as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. Out of the said documents, the main documents that were relied upon by the appellant are Exs.A8 and A9. The contention of P.W.1 was that she was given “Stri Dhana” at the time of her marriage that took place about 25 years prior to her giving evidence and at the time of marriage, she was given Acs.2.00 and that she has sold the said property and purchased the property covered under Ex.A8 on 20.04.1987. In support, she examined P.W.2-her mother and she has also stated that P.W.1 was given Acs.2.00 at the time of her marriage along with other gold ornaments. But no document was produced either by P.W.1 or P.W.2 in support of the same. P.W.2 has further stated that P.W.1 is doing tailoring work and got her source of income but the said fact was not spoken by P.W.1 herself. The Court below taken into consideration the said evidence and came to the conclusion that there is no evidence that she has got “Stri Dhana” property given by her parents, she sold the same and purchased the property under Ex.A8. More over, under Ex.A8, the property was sold by the petitioner in the year 1987 for Rs.13,800/- and according to her, she purchased the petition schedule property in the year 1991 for Rs.50,000/-. But no evidence was put forth from where she got difference of amount. Admittedly, she has no income of her own. Therefore, the Court below has rightly observed that her husband purchased property in her name benami to avoid attachment in case of loss in the business, as he is doing business in transportation. The finding of the Court below that the property was purchased by the second respondent in the name of the appellant benami has to be accepted. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding, as there is no material to establish the contention of the appellant. The claim of the appellant in respect of the movable property is not pressed. Hence, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD, J) 14th February 2011 RRB