THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1406 of 2001 JUGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 27.04.2001 passed in E.A.No.964 of 1999 in E.P.No.11 of 1997 in M.V.O.P.No.109 of 1989 on the file of the learned District Judge, Cuddapah, whereunder the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 C.P.C., for raising attachment made in E.P.No.11 of 1997 with regard to the schedule property, was dismissed. Appellant is the third party to M.V.O.P.No.109 of 1989 and also E.P.No.11 of 1997 in the said M.V.O.P. Respondent No.2, who is none other than the husband of the appellant, is the judgment debtor and Respondent No.1 is the decree holder in E.P.No.11 of 1997 in M.V.O.P.No.109 of 1989 filed before the learned District Judge, Cuddapah. Since the vehicle involved in the accident in the said M.V.O.P. was not insured, the 2nd respondent, being the owner of the crime vehicle, was made liable to pay the compensation. However, as the 2nd respondent failed to pay the compensation awarded in the said M.V.O.P., E.P.No.11 of 1997 was filed seeking attachment of the scheduled property mentioned therein and the same was ordered on 13.09.1997. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present E.A. for raising the attachment order passed in the E.P. It was the case of the appellant before the Court below that she is the absolute owner of the property mentioned in the E.P., having purchased the vacant site from the lawful owners and constructed a house therein by selling the gold ornaments given to her at the time of her marriage, and her husband has no nothing to do with the said property. It was the case of the 1st respondent that as per the Grama Panchayat, the name of the judgment debtor is shown as the owner of the property and only to avoid the sale of the property in execution of the decree, the judgment debtor got filed the petition through his wife at belated stage. It was also stated by the 1st respondent that similar petition in E.A.No.582 of 1990 was filed on earlier occasion and the same was dismissed for default on 07.04.1999. The court below, after detailed consideration of the matter, dismissed the present E.P. by order dated 27.04.2001. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. At paragraph 5 of the impugned order, the Court below observed as under: “The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 advanced their arguments with respect of their pleadings and the petitioner filed Ex.A1 sale deed dated 08.09.1980 and the 1st respondent filed Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 documents. As per Ex.A1 sale deed, it is shown that it is a registered document executed in favour of the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.2500/- on 8.9.1980 for a vacant site. The boundaries of Ex.A1 and E.P. schedule are tallied which have shown that they are one and the same. Whereas Ex.B1 filed by the respondent No.1 stated that the Executive Officer, Mydukur Grama Panchayat issued Ex.B1 stating that the house bearing Door No.13/381 in 4 portions in 13th ward are in the name of the 2nd respondent by name Maaboopeera. Ex.B2 is the statement showing the house tax demand extract from 1990-91 to 1996-97 stood in the name of the Maaboopeera (2nd respondent) for the Door No.13/381 and 13/381-1 to 4 bearing Assessment Nos.3131, 4094 to 4098 respectively. The petitioner is no other than the wife of the 2nd respondent who is the Judgment Debtor and the document under Ex.B2 is shown in the name of the 2nd respondent even prior to the attachment of the E.P. schedule. The 2nd respondent did not say anything whether the schedule property belonging to the petitioner or not. The 2nd respondent kept quite without alleging anything against the contentions made by 1st respondent/decree holder. No doubt the title of the schedule property is in the name of the petitioner who did not say whether the schedule property is being enjoyed by the petitioner or not. But as per Ex.B1 and B2, it is clearly shown that it is in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the 2nd respondent. So, the 2nd respondent has got interest in the property as on the date of attachment made in the above E.P. because the petitioner is the wife of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent got the sale deed in the name of the petitioner for the vacant site and the petitioner did not establish as how the consideration was passed under Ex.A1 by her except by selling her gold jewellery and purchased the said property. She did not examine the attestors and scribe of the document to show that she herself paid the consideration with her own funds to her vendors. The 2nd respondent also did not raise his little finger whether the petitioner purchased the said property with her own funds. So, in the absence of those facts, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner to show that the property belonged to the petitioner. Since the petitioner is the wife of the 2nd respondent, there is every possibility that the 2nd respondent got the sale deed for vacant site in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner did not show any document that she constructed the house over the vacant site by her own funds and she did not deny about the documents under Ex.B1 and B2 for existence. So, the claim made by the petitioner as 3rd party cannot be considered in view of the aforesaid circumstances.” In view of the aforesaid observations, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below has not committed any error in dismissing the present E.A. and, therefore, the civil miscellaneous appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 22.07.2010 v v