ADIVI LAKSHMI RATTAMMA Vs. AKISETTI RANGANAYAULRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of the appellant before as obtained a decree against a tenant for rent. He obtained an attachment before judgment and after the decree his legal representative, the appellant, was attempting to execute the decree against the property attached. The respondent who claimed the attached property under two bale-deeds (1) from the judgment- debtor to his wife and the 2nd from the wife to himself filed a claim petition under Order XXI, Rule 58. The petition was enquired into by the District Munaif of Bhimavaram. In the order he says "For the purpose of this petition we are concerned only with the prima facienature of the case." This shows that he considered the matter as one falling under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The appellant then filed an appeal to the District Court of Masulipatam. Ordinarily appeals lie from Bhimavaram to the Sub-Court, Narasapur. The appeal to the District Court was attempted to be justified on the ground that it was an appeal under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act though Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code was the section originally quoted and that the Munsifs order was under Section 4 of the Act. Though the Munaif was requested to inquire into the matter under that section he declined to do so.

(3.) The District Judge held that there was an appeal under: 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The appeal was then presented to the Subordinate Judge's Court of Narasapur as one under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code out of time. The Habordinate Judge dismissed it as barred by limitation. Hence this second appeal.