THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No :765 of 2009 DATED:24.06.2011 Between: T.Lakshmipathi Naidu. ..... PETITIONER And G.Krishnamma. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 06.01.2009, in I.A.No.936 of 2008 in O.S.No.325 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, seeking attachment before judgment of the petition schedule land of Ac.0.86 cents in Sy.No.153/4, Ramapuram village, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondent for recovery of an amount said to be due under a promissory note executed by one G.Ashok Naidu, who is the son of the defendant. It is stated that the said Ashok Naidu died intestate unmarried on 16.05.2008 leaving behind the defendant, his mother, as the only legal heir. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule land of Ac.0.86 cents constituted the estate of the deceased and after his death it devolved on the defendant and the defendant is making hectic efforts to dispose of the same and therefore he sought for attachment of the said land. Respondent-defendant filed a counter opposing the application on the ground that the said land of Ac.0.86 cents is the self-acquired property of her husband-Rangaiah Naidu, who is also alive, and the plaintiff has not chosen to implead the said Rangaiah Naidu. Thus, according to the defendant, the land, which is sought to be attached before judgment, exclusively devolved to her husband-Rangaiah Naidu as his self- acquired property and he is not a party to the suit and therefore the said land is not liable to be attached. Plaintiff has not adduced any evidence prima facie to show that the said Ashok Naidu was having any share in the petition schedule land and that on his death his interest in the said land devolved on his mother-defendant. On the other hand, the defendant produced a copy of the ryotwari passbook. It shows that the land was registered in the name of the said Rangaiah Naidu, who is the husband of the defendant and not a party to the suit. 4. In the circumstances, in the absence of any material on record to show that the deceased was having any share in the petition schedule land or that the petition schedule land belonged to the deceased and that on his death the interest therein devolved on his mother- defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek attachment before judgment of the said land, especially when it is shown that the land stands registered in the name of the defendant’s husband-Rangaiah Naidu. The impugned order does not therefore call for any interference of this Court. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 24th June, 2011. Tsy