THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMSA.No. 29 of 2000 JUDGEMENT: This CMSA is filed against the Judgement dt. 11.4.1997 of the learned I Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam in CMA.No. 71 of 1997 whereby the learned Judge confirmed the order of the learned District Munsif, Machilipatnam in E.A.No. 300 of 1992 in E.P.No. 86 of 1992 in O.S.No. 386 of 1988. The 1st respondent having obtained a money decree against the respondents 2 and 3 filed E.P and got attached the schedule property i.e. Bajaj Scooter, Sofa set and one colour Television on the ground that the said property belongs to respondents 2 and 3 who are the husband and son of the appellant herein. After the above property was attached, the appellant filed a claim petition E.A.No. 300 of 1992 under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC claiming that the property attached in execution of the decree is her own property and sought to raise the attachment. The learned District Munsif, Machilipatnam after making an elaborate enquiry into the claim petition, dismissed the same holding that the properties in fact belong to the 2nd respondent who is the husband of the appellant but they were nominally purchased in the name of the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred CMA.No. 71 of 1997 which was dismissed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam confirming the findings of the District Munsiff, Machilipatnam. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the present CMSA. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. The following substantial questions of law were formulated at the time of admitting the second appeal. a) Whether the decree of the Appellate Court which failed to consider the material part of evidence i.e. Exs: A.1 to A.3 and the evidence of Pw.2 cannot be sustained. b) Whether the burden of proof regarding the nominal character of the Articles attached shifts to the decree holder when the claimant proved her title to the said articles. Before the learned District Munsif, the son of the appellant was examined as Pw.1, an Accountant in the TV shop was examined as Pw.2 and the brother of the appellant was examined as Pw.3 and Exs: A.1 to A.3 were marked. The principal contention of the 1st respondent/decree holder is that the properties attached in fact belong to the 2nd respondent, who is the husband of the appellant but they were nominally purchased in her name. It is the case of the 1st respondent that the respondents 2 and 3 invented the said theory to avoid payment of decreetal amount and to harass him. The appellant/claim-petitioner did not enter into witness box and her son was examined as Pw.1 who deposed that the appellant was not keeping good health but no proof has been placed by him to substantiate the same. Pw.2 stated in his cross examination that the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 were residing under one roof. It was also elicited that either the Respondent No.2 or Respondent No.3 possess license to drive Bajaj Scooter, which was attached in the E.P. Though the bill relating to TV was in the name of the appellant, it is the contention of the 1st respondent that it was nominally obtained in the name of the appellant. No documentary proof is placed to show that Pw.2 was working in the Tele Vision shop from where the TV was purchased. Similarly Pw.3 who is no other than the brother of the appellant stated that he got prepared the Sofa set and presented the same to the appellant. Except the said version, there is no other material to show that the Sofa set belongs to the appellant. Further, there is no evidence adduced by the appellant to prove her earning capacity. The Courts below however recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the articles in fact belong to the husband of the appellant but they were purchased nominally in the name of the appellant. The contention that the courts below did not take into consideration Exs:A.1 to A.3 is factually incorrect since the orders passed by the courts below are passed only after considering those documents. Therefore, when a finding is recorded after considering Exs:A.1 to A.3 and the said finding relates to a question of fact, it does not raise any substantial question of law. As regards the other substantial question of law, it may be said that the courts below did not record any finding to the effect that the appellant has got title over the property attached and consequently the burden of proof shifted to the decree holder to prove that the articles were nominally purchased in the name of the appellant. When both parties adduced their respective evidence, the burden of proof loses its significance and ultimately the court will record a finding basing on the entire evidence brought on record. In the instant case, the courts below recorded findings considering the entire evidence on record and therefore the question of committing any mistake with regard to burden of proof does not arise. This aspect also does not raise any substantial question of law. Since no substantial question of law arises for adjudication, this Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 07.04.2010. KRB, THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMSA.No. 29 of 2000 Dt. 07.04.2010