HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.873 of 2010 Between: Pasupuleti Ratna Kumari. … Appellant And Upperla Veraju and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.873 of 2010 ORDER:- This second appeal is filed by the appellant/claim petitioner/3rd party, against the decree and judgment, dated 19.02.2010, passed by IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada, in A.S.No.295 of 2006, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed, confirming the dismissal of claim petition in I.A.No.407 of 2003 in O.S.No.547 of 2002, dated 04.09.2006, by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The appellant, who is the claim petitioner, preferred I.A.No.407 of 2003 in O.S.No.547 of 2003 for raising the attachment over the petition schedule property made in I.A.No.1360 of 2002, stating that she is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property and the 2nd respondent-G.Pundareeka Swamy has no title, interest, possession and enjoyment over the schedule property. The schedule property originally belongs to G.Venkata Koteswari, W/o.Pundareeka Swamy of Kakinada, who purchased the same from one Md.Vajiruddin under a registered sale deed, dated 27.07.2000, and from her, the appellant purchased the property under a registered sale deed, dated 15.11.2002. After purchase of the same, the appellant got the property mutated in her name in the municipal records and she is in possession of the same. On the Court Amin visiting the schedule premises in the 2nd week of January 2003, she came to know that the 1st respondent intentionally showed the schedule property as that of the 2nd respondent. Hence, she seeks to raise the attachment over the schedule property. The same was opposed by the 1st respondent by filing a counter contending that the 2nd respondent is the owner of the petition schedule property, which originally belonged to Ghanta Venkata Koteswari and the said Koteswari executed a registered gift deed in favour of the 2nd respondent on 12.12.2001, who is no other than her husband. The 2nd respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1st respondent and executed a promissory note to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and he got issued a legal notice on 03.11.2002 and filed the suit O.S.No.547 of 2002 and got the petition schedule property attached as per the orders in I.A.No.1360 of 2002. It is further submitted that the appellant, colluding with the 2nd respondent and his wife, created the sale deed, dated 15.11.2002 to defeat the claim of the 1st respondent and do not determine the title under the said sale deed. Hence, the 2nd respondent is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property, by virtue of the registered gift deed executed by Koteswari and prays to make the attachment before judgment, ordered in I.A.No.1360 of 2002 absolute, dismissing the petition. The trial court dismissed the I.A. and made the attachment absolute. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate court confirmed the same. Hence, the present second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that when the appellant purchased the property under registered sale deed, dated 15.11.2002, from G.Venkata Koteswari W/o.Pundareeka Swamy, who admittedly purchased the same from one Md.Vajiruddin under a registered sale deed, dated 27.07.2000 and got mutated her name in the municipal records, she is in possession of the property and, therefore, the said property cannot be attached and the trial court has committed an error in making the attachment absolute and in dismissing the claim petition. It is not disputed that the appellant purchased the property under Ex.A1-copy of sale deed, dated 15.11.2002, from Ganta Venkata Koteswari, who purchased the same under Ex.A2 sale deed, dated 27.07.2000, from Md.Vajiruddin; got mutated the same in her name under Ex.A3, dated 28.01.2003; and paid the property tax under Ex.A4- tax receipt, dated 16.11.2002, in the name of Ghanta Venkata Koteswari. Ex.B1 is the registration extract of the gift settlement deed, dated 12.12.2001, executed by Venkata Koteswari in favour of Pundarika Swamy/ 2nd respondent, who is no other than the husband of Koteswari, which was just eleven months earlier to the sale transaction under Ex.A1. Once the vendor of the appellant executed a registered gift deed in favour of her husband, she will not have any title over the property conveyed and the appellant cannot claim any title over the schedule property. It is not disputed that the 2nd respondent, who was the owner of the property at the relevant point of time, borrowed amount from the 1st respondent and for the default committed by him, the 1st respondent got issued a notice on 03.11.2002, served on the 2nd respondent on 08.11.2002 and later filed the suit. In the meantime, the appellant purchased the property from the wife of the 2nd respondent, who is no more the owner of the property. Hence, the property stands in the name of 2nd respondent only. In the absence of any title possessed by the vendor of the appellant, the appellant cannot claim title over the said property. Therefore. no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The Second Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 17th September 2010 lmv