K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment due to commonality of law and facts involved.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent had obtained one money decree in O. S. No. 322/80 and another money decree in O. S. No. 334/80 against the 2nd respondent. He filed E. P. No. 14/88 in O. S. No. 322/30 and E. P. No. 15/88 in O. S. No. 334/80. The house bearing Door No-4-15 and 4-15/a (old) and 4-13 (new) has been attached. The appellant, who is the son of the 2nd respondent judgment debtor, filed Objection 167/89 in E. P. 14/88 and objection 171/89 in E. P. 15/88 under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the attached house had fallen to his share in the mutual partition effected in the month of December, 1984 and evidenced by registered partition deed, Ex. A1, dated 30-4-1985 and from the date of the partition he has been in possession and enjoyment of the attached house and, therefore, it is not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decrees against his father. The decree holder - first respondent through his counter denied the claim of the appellant - objector alleging that, knowing fully that the suit then pending

Click Here to Read the rest of this document