THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3349 of 2009 DT.12.8.2011 Between: Dodda Brahmananda Reddy … Petitioner And Mallela China Venkateswara Reddy & another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.V.S.K.Chakravarthy Counsel for respondent: Sri B.Chinnappa Reddy for R.1 The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3349 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner is the father of the 2nd respondent herein. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit O.S.No.185 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet for recovery of money of Rs.86,286/- based on the promissory note dated 9-12-2002 said to have been executed by the son of the petitioner herein i.e., the 2nd respondent herein for a sum of Rs.60,000/-. Pending the suit, the 1st respondent-plaintiff got attached the property, and the petitioner herein being the father of the sole defendant, filed a claim petition under Order 38 Rule 8 and Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure to raise the said attachment over the petition schedule property effected in I.A.No.2128 of 2003 in O.S.No.185 of 2003 contending that as the attached property is his self acquired property and as he is in exclusive possession, the same cannot be attached towards the decretal amount, if any, passed against the son. It is the case of the defendant that though the property stands in the name of his father, it is a joint family property being purchased from out of the Katnam amount of the defendant alone. Whether the suit property is self-acquired property of the defendant or the joint family property of the defendant and his father is a matter to be decided in a separate suit. However, even according to the defendant, as it is stated that he has got right, title and interest over the said property, I am of the opinion that the Court below has rightly attached the half share of the sole defendant excluding the half share belonging to the petitioner-claimant. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any legal infirmity to interfere with the impugned order. The revision is accordingly dismissed. However, as the suit is pending from 2003 onwards, the court below is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously on priority basis. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 12.8.2011 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3349 pf 2009 DATE: 12.8.2011