IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THIS THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.723 OF 2002 Between: M/s. Surya Chandra Paper Mills Co. Limited …. Appellant AND Yenduri Nukaraju S/o. Appa Rao and others …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.723 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S No.1 of 1989 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram against the third respondent for recovery of certain amount. He filed I.A. No.11 of 1989 under Order-XXXVIII Rule-5 CPC with a prayer to attach an item of immovable property, before judgment. The trial Court initially passed ad-interim order of attachment and thereafter it was made absolute. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, who are third parties to the suit, filed I.A. No.1676 of 1992 under Rule-8 of Order-XXXVIII CPC with a prayer to raise the attachment. They pleaded that the suit schedule property, which was originally owned by the 3rd respondent, was donated by him to the Boodan Yagna Board and the Board in turn granted pattas in their favour. The application was opposed by the appellant on several grounds. Through its order dated 16-01-2001, the trial Court allowed the I.A. and raised the attachment. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that I.A. No.1676 of 1992 was filed long after the order of attachment before judgment was made absolute, and the I.A. ought not to have entertained. He submits that admittedly the property was owned by the 3rd respondent and the evidence on record did not establish conferment of any valid title on respondents 1 and 2. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record from the right perspective. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that the fact that the suit schedule property was donated by the 3rd respondent is borne out by record and that fact is sufficient to raise the attachment. He contends that voluminous documentary evidence was adduced before the trial Court and no exception can be taken to the order. 5. The application filed under Rule-8 of Order-XXXVIII CPC is similar to the one filed under Rule-58 of Order-XXI CPC. For all practical purposes, that has to be decided as independent suits. Obviously, for this reason, the trial Court framed a point for consideration, which is akin to an issue. 6. Respondents 1 and 2, who filed the I.A., examined as PWs.1 and 2 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-16. The appellant, on the other hand, examined RWs.1 and 2 and on his behalf, Exs.B-1 to B-5 were filed. 7. It is no doubt true that the 3rd respondent viz., the sole defendant in the suit, was the original owner of the property in question. The appellant proceeded on the assumption that the 3rd respondent continued to be the owner of the property. However, it emerges that the 3rd respondent donated that land to the Boodan Yagna Board. Respondents 1 and 2 have placed before the trial Court Exs.A-1 and A-10, proceedings of the Boodan Yagna Board, dated 18- 04-1985, through which pattas were granted for the lands that resulted in conferment of title upon respondents 1 and 2 and delivery of possession. The fact that the title came to be conferred upon respondents 1 and 2 is evident from the fact that pattadar passbooks were issued to them. The copies of same are filed as Exs.A-7, A-8, A- 11 and A-12. The land revenue receipts in favour of respondents 1 and 2 are filed as Exs.A-2 to A-6 and A-13 to A-16. The appellant is not claiming any title in the property by himself. The only person, who has asserted the title viz., the 3rd respondent, did not contest the claim of respondents 1 and 2. There was hardly any alternative left open for the trial Court, except to raise the attachment. The trial court has undertaken extensive discussion before it arrived at the conclusions as to the right and title of respondents 1 and 2 over the property. Further, it is not as if the appellant is handicapped from the proceeding against the 3rd respondent for execution of the decree. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J July 29, 2010. KTL