THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1153 of 2002 JUDGMENT: Respondent No.3 initiated arbitration proceedings in the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Guntur against respondent Nos.1 and 2. A decree came to be passed for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. For execution of the decree, respondent No.3 filed E.P.No.13 of 1999 and an item of immovable property, owned by respondent No.1 was attached. The appellant, who is the brother of respondent No.1, filed E.A.No.109 of 2000 under Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C. He pleaded that the attached property was gifted to him on 09.01.1999 and the same is not available for execution. The executing Court dismissed the E.A. on 13.02.2002. The same is challenged in this appeal. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that admittedly, the transfer in favour of his client took place much prior to the date of attachment and once the property is vested in the appellant absolutely, the executing Court ought to have allowed the claim. He contends that the gift deed in favour of the appellant is preceded by an agreement of sale, which took place much prior to the initiation of the arbitration proceedings. The learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, submits that the so-called gift in favour of the appellant is nothing but an attempt to defeat the claim under the decree. He contends that respondent No.1, who is the owner of the property, acted as an attestor while the property was gifted and she did not raise any objection as to the ownership thereof. Respondent No.3 initiated execution proceedings against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and got attached an immovable property of a house at Piduguralla. The appellant laid claim for that property. In the claim petition filed by him, the executing Court has undertaken detailed enquiry and trial. On behalf of the appellant P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of respondent No.3, R.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 is the owner of the property before it was gifted to the appellant. Respondent No.3 initiated arbitration proceedings against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the same resulted in a decree for about Rs.5,00,000/-. The attachment was effected in June, 1999. The gift in favour of the appellant is said to have taken place in January 1999. In case the transfer in favour of the appellant took place in the ordinary course of things, the mere fact that he happens to be the brother of the judgment-debtor in the E.P. would not have made much of difference. The plea raised by the appellant was that there existed an agreement of sale in his favour and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to respondent No.1. If that were to be so, a sale deed ought to have been executed, but a gift deed was executed, that too, on the eve of the initiation of the execution proceedings. Respondent No.1 was very much aware of the initiation of the arbitration proceedings and the decree passed therein. If not from the point of view of the appellant, the so-called transfer becomes hit by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, since it was sought to be affected only to defeat the claims under decree. The trial Court has examined the matter from the correct perspective and this Court is not inclined to take a different view. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23.07.2010 kdl