- (1.) JUDGEMENT This is a Second Appeal by Smt. Kishan Piari against the order dated 2-1-1960 of the District Judge of Bareilly dismissing her appeal and thereby maintaining the order of the insolvency Judge, whereby her exclusive claim to the house in dispute was disallowed. The insolvency Judge while disallowing the exclusive claim of Smt. Kishan Piari upheld the report of the Official Receiver that the insolvent Lachman Singh had one half snare in the house.
(2.) IN execution of her decree against Lachman Singh, Smt. Raj Rani, wife of Raghoram, respondent No. 3 had the disputed house attached with the allegation that it belonged to the judgment-debtor. Smt. Kishan Piari thereupon filed an objection under O. 21, R. 58, C.P.C. claiming to be the exclusive owner thereof. When the objection was dismissed, she instituted suit No. 10 of 1953 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bareilly, for declaration that she was the owner of the whole of the house and that it was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the above decree. The suit was decreed on 18-5-1953 and, it is said, Smt. Raj Rani alone preferred an appeal against that decree. Lachman Singh was also a defendant to the suit,, but he appears to have submitted to the decree. That appeal was dismissed on 23-9-1963. It is of importance that even though Lachman Singh was adjudicated an insolvent sometimes in 1956, Smt. Raj Rani made no attempt to implead the Official-Receiver in the appeal either in his personal capacity or as representing the estate of the insolvent. After Lachman Singh was adjudicated an insolvent, the Official Receiver took possession of the house, and thereupon Smt. Kishan Piari made an objection before the insolvency Judge also. As already mentioned above, she claimed to be the exclusive owner of the house, on the basis of the gift made by her father, while, according to the Official Receiver, half the house belonged to the insolvent. The objection was disallowed under order dated 13-10-1958. Smt. Kishan Piari then preferred an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed under the impugned order dated 2-1-1960. She has preferred this Second Appeal and is challenging the lower appellate Courts order chiefly on the ground that the judgment in the other litigation has become final, neither Smt. Raj. Rani or her successor-in-interest, nor the Official-Receiver or the insolvent having preferred any Second Appeal before the High Court, and the respondents are bound by this decree.
(3.) IT has been contended before me that in view of the judgment in suit No. 10 of 1953. It is not open to the Official Receiver, nor to the insolvent and also the creditors, to challenge the finding, that Smt. Kishan Piari is the exclusive owner of the house.;